1951-02-19

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the public accounts of Canada and the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1950, which were tabled in the house on Wednesday, January 31, be referred to the public accounts committee.


Mr. Fleming:: When will copies of the public accounts be available for distribution among members?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thought they were available at the present time, and was not aware that members could not obtain them. I believe everyone has been able to get a copy, because they have been available for some time through the distribution office.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister	of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, I thought I should advise the house on a matter which has received much publicity in the newspapers during the past week, the question of railway box car shortage. It is a problem which is ever recurring at certain periods of the year and at this particular time it has been aggravated by the strike of railway switchmen in the United States, which was settled some ten days ago.
The Canadian railways through their railway association have been in constant touch with the interstate commerce commission and the association of American railroads on the car shortage problem. Complete co-operation exists between the railways here in Canada and in the United States. Every effort is being made to return to Canada box cars of Canadian ownership now in the United States. As a matter of fact, beginning tomorrow morning, February 20, all Canadian cars on United States lines must be returned empty. This will mean quite a loss in revenue traffic, but that is the extent to which the railways are prepared to co-operate in order
to meet the requirements of Canadian shippers. I can assure the house that no stone has been left unturned by the managements of our Canadian railways to ease the present shortage.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 22, to amend the United Church of Canada Act.-Mr. Mclvor.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries. On October 27 last, the minister, in a radio broadcast to the fishermen of Newfoundland, assured them that the prices support board would review the shore fish situation as the marketing season advanced. 1 should like to ask him these questions:
1.	Will the minister indicate what action, if any, has been taken by the federal authorities to implement this undertaking with the Newfoundland fishermen?
2.	Will the minister indicate what action the department has taken for the development of Newfoundland's fisheries?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question, but it will take some time to answer it, and if it is agreeable to him and to the house I would prefer to answer it tomorrow on the order for motions.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if Canada is represented on the economic and social council which is meeting in Santiago, Chile, and if so, by whom.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: We are represented at
that meeting. Our representative is the ambassador to the Argentine. Mr. Kearney.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are there any other representatives?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes. The delegation includes one of the officers of the embassy in Chile, and-I speak subject to correction-two officials from Ottawa, one from the Department of External Affairs -and one from the Department of Finance.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question with respect to the layoff of certain civil servants as part of the government's economy program. Will he inform the house, either by means of a statement or by tabling the appropriate documents, what the pattern of the lay-off is? Will he state particularly who goes first, permanent or temporary civil servants, and why?
Right Hon. Li S. St. Laurent ' (Prime Minister): I shall see if a statement can be prepared in response to that question.



NATIONAL HEALTH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Harris (Danforth):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I have not given him any notice of this question, and I ask him to accept this as notice and perhaps he can answer in two or three days. In connection with the great work that he is doing, will he give consideration to granting assistance to nurses' residences, additions to hospitals, internes' residences, laundries and other ancillary buildings?



WILDLIFE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: I should like to ask the Minister of Resources and Development if he has received a petition from the fishermen of the Placentia bay area regarding the shooting of turrs, and is he prepared to give instructions with regard thereto?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: No such petition has come to my notice.
fMr. Pearson.]



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Fernand Viau (St. Boniface) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 7, to incorporate the Hutterian Brethren church.
Some hqn. Members: Explain.


Fernand Viau: Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of this bill, an act to incorporate the Hutterian Brethren church, I feel that this house would like an explanation outlining briefly the history of this group of people known as Hutterites who live now in Manitoba and Alberta, principally the latter.
These people, who are good Christians, worship God in accordance with the interpretation and teachings of the bible as laid down by a Christian missionary named Hutter, a native of Holland. These Hutterites are ail farmers, settled in the provinces I have mentioned. According to the latest statistics, in Alberta there are about 4,200 and in Manitoba approximately 2,300. There are about forty-six of them settled in the fruit-land of Ontario. They settle in what they call colonies, and enjoy the only communal life of any racial group in this country. They have established a very good reputation as farmers and citizens, and, though because of the tenets or teachings of their Christian religion they will not support any one citizen for public office or seek any public office themselves, they comply strictly and religiously with all the laws of the land. They are upright, clean and worthy citizens. The records of their history since arrival in Canada in 1917 may be searched and no one will find a Hutterite having been charged with any major crime or offence.
Criticisms of their buying large tracts of land in Manitoba and Alberta were made often, it being stated that by doing so they endangered the life of the existing or settled communities of other racial groups, principally Anglo-Saxon or French-Canadian. In Alberta certain restrictive measures were passed against them by the legislature. They are now asking parliament to incorporate the persons named in the bill as a body politic and to grant them the privilege of worshipping God in accordance with the ritual of their faith. When this bill passes it will become law throughout Canada, but for the present the activities of their church will be carried on only in Manitoba and Alberta.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. 1. Helland (Humboldt) moved the second reading of Bill No. 8, to incorporate the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill refers to the Norwegian Lutheran church, which was incorporated in 1922. Over the last thirty years this church has changed considerably, and most of the members do not like the word "Norwegian." They want to be known as a Canadian church, and they would like to change the word "Norwegian" to "Evangelical". This bill is practically the same as the act now in force. In the United States the name of this church was changed in 1946 to the Evangelical church, which is the mother church for North America. The head office of our church is in Saskatoon, but our members are scattered throughout five provinces.
We are not Norwegians any more; we are Canadians. That is one of the main reasons for the proposed change.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill .No. 9, for the relief of John Andrew Hague.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 10, for the relief of Jane Louise Welle Kennedy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 11, for the relief of Frances Dan-forth Stephens Ross de Lall.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 12, for the relief of Daphne May Hodgson Frosst.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 13, for the relief of Celia Frances Cantlie Molson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 14, for the relief of Rowland Walter Tyner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 15, for the relief of Maeve Mary Margaret McPherson Mackenzie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 16, for the relief of Judith Francis Cohen Besner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 17, for the relief of Edith Mary Bentley Towler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 18, for the relief of Patricia Galley Mulvey.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Ethel Kershaw Warren.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Petrus (Peter) Surkala.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Doris Demree McMullen.-Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Balcom:: 1.	(a) Has an investigation taken place in respect to the cost of the St. Lawrence power and waterway project along the lines recently indicated by the Minister of Transport? If so, what is the esti-
Private Bills
mated cost? (b) Has the estimated cost been broken down by object, that is, as between power development and transportation?
2.	(a) In financial arrangements contemplated will the power phase of the project be self-liquidating so far as the government of Canada is concerned? (b) In respect to the seaway development what are the estimated revenues and from what source, in relation to estimated operating and capital costs?
3.	What is the expected effect of the project (a) on industrial development, identifying the areas to benefit; (b) in the creation of new traffic; (c) on established traffic routes (i) Canadian domestic traffic; (ii) Canadian import and export trade; (a) through the ports of Montreal and Quebec; (b) through Canadian Atlantic ports; (c) through United States Atlantic ports?
4.	Has the development of the St. Lawrence seaway project been studied with a view to defence? If so, what factors have been considered?


Mr. Benidickson:: I have discussed this question with the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Balcom), who has been informed that some of the information asked for is not available. The hon. member has agreed to reword his question; therefore I ask that it be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Question dropped.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Mr. Poulin:: 1.	Has the combines investigation commissioner held a preliminary inquiry into the possible existence of an alleged combine aiming to fix the price of maple products in the province of Quebec?
2.	If so, what was the result of such inquiry?
3.	Will an official investigation be held?
4.	If so, when?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	Out of fairness to the parties concerned, against whom no adverse conclusions may be reached, it has not been the general practice to reply to a question of this kind as to whether or not any particular industry or business is being inquired into under the Combines Investigation Act unless and until the commissioner makes a report under the act. The commissioner has made no such report in respect of the industry mentioned.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3. Answered by No. 1.
4. Answered by No. 1.


AIRFIELDS IN PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Has a survey of airfields in the prairie provinces been made by the defence department recently, with a view to expanding air-training facilities?
2.	Has the dismantling of hangars and other buildings at airfields used in the last war been discontinued?
3.	Has a decision been made to reopen any former airfields on the prairies?
4.	If so, at what location or locations?
Questions


Mr. Campney:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Hangars and buildings not required by the Department of National Defence or not economically repairable were disposed of through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. Such disposals have been discontinued.
3.	Yes.
4.	The locations are still under examination.


MOTOR VEHICLES
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Have representations been made to the government by Canadian companies asking for the reimposition of dumping duties against British motor cars?
2.	If so, by what companies?
3.	What were the chief reasons given in support of their representations?
4.	Has the amount of the dumping duty to be imposed been fixed?
5.	Has the government received any protest from British or Canadian agricultural or manufacturing groups concerning the proposed dumping duties?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Canadian Automobile Chamber of Commerce.
3.	Extraordinary privilege of exemption from liability to dumping duty, particularly as motor cars produced in Great Britain enter Canada free of ordinary customs duty under the British preferential tariff; evidence that some motor cars were being imported at lower prices than the fair market value as sold for home consumption in the country of export; prohibited importation of motor cars into Great Britain, and severely restricted imports into other parts of the sterling area where a large market for Canadian cars had previously been enjoyed, and which threatened curtailment of employment in the industry in Canada.
4.	No. Dumping duty is a compensating duty to which imported goods of a class or kind produced in, Canada only become liable by reason of a lesser price to the purchaser in Canada than in the domestic market, and only to the extent of this difference.
5.	No.	[DOT]


SALARIES AND SUPERANNUATION
Mr. Winkler:: 1.	Since the year 1925, on how many occasions were increases made in the salaries of judges in Canada?
2.	What was the amount on each occasion?
3.	What is the rate of superannuation, contributory or non-contributory for judges?
4.	How many former judges are now receiving superannuation (a) contributory; (b) non-contributory?

5.	When could judges first avail themselves of the last survivor clause in their superannuation for the benefit of their wives, and at what cost to the judge?
6.	How many widows of judges are receiving benefits of the above-mentioned clause of superannuation?


Mr. Garson:: Mr. Speaker, I am informed
that the general increase took place in the year 1920, not in the year 1925. Would the hon. member who asked the question be agreeable to my tabling the answer with the year "1920" substituted for the year "1925"?


Mr. Winkler:: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The answer is as follows:
1.	Supreme Court of Canada, 2; all other courts with the exception of circuit court district of Montreal, 1.
2.	January 1, 1947, Chief Justice of Canada, $5,000.00; December 23, 1949, Chief Justice of Canada, $5,000.00; January 1, 1947, puisne judges, Supreme Court of Canada, $4,000.00; December 23, 1949, puisne judges, Supreme Court of Canada, $4,000.00; chief justices of superior courts and president of Exchequer Court of Canada, $3,333.33; puisne judges superior court and exchequer court, $3,000.00; county and district court judges, $1,666.66.
3.	Two thirds of salary, except that a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who held office on March 31, 1927, and continues until age seventy-five, and also a county court or district court judge who is compulsorily retired at age seventy-five or has continued in office for thirty years and resigns, may be granted an annuity not exceeding three-fourths of his salary.
Annuities are non-contributory.
4.	64.
5.	August 15, 1944: judge's annuity reduced by one third.
6.	48.


BUTTER AND OLEOMARGARINE
Mr. Fair:: 1.	How many pounds of butter were produced in Canada during the calendar year 1950?
2.	During the same period (a) how many pounds of margarine were produced in Canada; (b) what quantities of raw materials for the manufacture of margarine were imported into Canada?
3.	What amount was collected as duty on the raw materials imported?
4.	How many pounds of (a) butter; (b) margarine, were in storage on the 31st of January last?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	261,736,000 pounds of creamery butter were produced in 1950.
2.	(a) Production of margarine in 1950, 94,032,000 pounds.

(b) No information available as to quantities imported for this specific purpose. Consumption of oils and fats in margarine in 1950, in thousands of pounds, was:
(1)	Vegetable oils, imported: cottonseed, 42,106; coconut and peanut, 8,822.
(2)	Vegetable oils, domestic or imported: soybean, 18,187; sunflower seed, 3,178.
(3)	Marine and animal oils, domestic, 4,756.
3.	No information.
4.	(a) 46,376,000 pounds butter in storage at January 31 last.
(b) 1,859,000 pounds margarine in storage at January 31 last.


INCAPACITATED PERSONS
Mr. Fair:: 1.	Did the dominion or provincial governments conduct a survey in 1950 to ascertain the number of physically incapacitated persons in each province?
2.	If so, what is the result of such survey?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	Yes, a survey to ascertain the number of physically incapacitated persons in each province was started as a part of the national sickness survey in 1950.
2.	As the survey will not be completed until the end of 1951, no final results will be available until after that time.


SALES TO BRITAIN AND TO CANADIAN
Mr. Fair:: 1.	What quantity of wheat was delivered under the British wheat agreement during the crop year 1949-50?
2.	What price per bushel was obtained?
3.	During the same period, what quantity of class II wheat was sold?
4.	What was the average price per bushel obtained?
5.	For the same period, what quantity was sold to Canadian millers for Canadian consumption as flour?
6.	At what price per bushel was this wheat sold?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	Net sales to the United Kingdom under the Canada-United Kingdom agreement were 140 million bushels. Of this quantity 127.5 million bushels were delivered in the crop year ended July 31, 1950, and the balance of 12.5 million bushels was delivered in August and September, 1950.
2.	$2 per bushel basis No. 1 northern wheat in store Fort William/Port Arthur, Vancouver and Churchill, plus a carrying charge of 5 cents per bushel to September 30, 1949, and 6 cents per bushel from October 1, 1949.
3.	26,505,011 bushels.
4.	$2.16 per bushel basis No. 1 northern wheat in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver.
Questions
5.	39,788,512 bushels.
6.	$2 per bushel basis No. 1 northern wheat in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver, plus a carrying charge of 5 cents per bushel to September 30, 1949, and 6 cents per bushel from October 1, 1949.


SOLDIER SETTLERS
Mr. Fair:: 1.	How many soldier settlers of world war I were in debt to the soldier settlement board as at (a) January 1, 1950; (b) January 1, 1951?
2.	What was the total amount of indebtedness of those settlers as at (a) January 1, 1950; (b) January 1, 1951?
3.	What is the total amount paid in by the settlers during the above period?
4.	In how many cases were reductions made?
5.	What is the total amount of reductions granted during the year 1950?
6.	Have any foreclosures been made or quit claim deeds been demanded during the period under review? If so, how many of each?
7.	What is the maximum number of years any of those contracts have been in effect?
8.	What rate of interest was charged those veterans?


Mr. Muich:: 1.	(a) 1634; (b) 1272.
2.	(a) $1,838,303.18; (b) $1,428,069.42.
3.	$356,792.69.
4.	226 accounts were reduced (includes 25 where reduction was authorized prior to January 1, 1950).
5.	Accounts were reduced by $106,386.34 (includes $13,493.22 authorized prior to January 1, 1950).
6.	No.
7.	30.
8.	5 per cent to standard date in 1944 or date of enlistment in world war II (if applicable); then 31 per cent per annum subsequent to those dates.


WHITEHORSE, YUKON    APPOINTMENT OF ENGINEER
Mr. Noseworthy:: 1.	Who is the present chief supervising engineer for the Yukon?
2.	Has Mr. Litzenberger been appointed to any official position?
3.	If so, to what position?
4.	Why was he appointed to this position?
5.	Did the government purchase or build a house in Whitehorse for Mr. Litzenberger?
6.	If so, what was the total expenditure by the government for such a house?
7.	Was a special order in council passed in February, 1950, for the purchase or building of said house?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	There is no officer with this title.
2.	A. J. H. Litzenberger was appointed by the civil service commission as a technical officer grade 4, Department of Resources and

Questions
Development, and was allocated to engineering work in the Yukon Territory.
3 and 4. Answered by No. 2.
5.	A house was purchased for the incumbent of position of technical officer grade 4 following the general policy of the department in providing accommodation for senior members of the staff where private accommodation is not available. Rental is charged the occupant.
6.	$8,200.
7.	P.C. 544, dated February 3, 1950.


STEWART RIVER-DAWSON CITY ROAD
Mr. Noseworthy:: 1.	Was some preparatory work done by the federal government on the proposed road from Stewart River to Dawson city?
2.	If so, what amount was spent?
3.	Was the work cancelled?
4.	If so, for what reason?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	No construction work was undertaken, but a reconnaissance survey was made in 1949.
2.	$11,600 for the above survey.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.


ARMY AND AIR FORCE-HOUSING IN YUKON TERRITORY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Nose worthy:
1.	Are houses being built for the army and air force in Whitehorse and elsewhere in the Yukon?
2.	If so, by what construction companies, and how many are being built?
3.	At what price?
Mr. Campney:: 1.	Houses are being built for the army at Whitehorse. No other houses are being built in the Yukon for the army or air force.
2.	Marwell Construction Company, of 410 Seymour street, Vancouver, B.C., are under contract to build 100 housing units.
3.	$13,093 per unit.



SHANGHAI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL


Mr. Pearkes:: What action has been taken by the government to assist Canadian citizens having pension claims against the Shanghai municipal council?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Negotiations for the settlement of these claims were carried on in China until the departure of our ambassador in 1949.
Success was not achieved, and no further action has since been possible. Consideration was given to payment of an ex gratia allowance by the Canadian government to these claimants, but it was decided that this could not be justified.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Stanley Howard Knowles: During each of the past three years, what was the amount spent by the Canadian National Railways on purchases from (a) the Northwestern Brass, Limited; (b) the Dominion Wheel and Foundries, Limited; (c) T. McAvity and Sons; (d) the Montreal Locomotive Works; (e) The Canadian Locomotive Company; (f) The Canadian Car and Foundry Company; (g) the Bird-Archer Company?


William Moore Benidickson: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
It is not the policy of the management to make public detailed information about its purchases from individual firms. To do so might prejudice our position in a field of traffic which is highly competitive.



PENSIONS


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	How many pensions have been granted to exservicemen for disabilities directly due to service in world war II?
2.	How many pensions have been granted for prewar disabilities aggravated by service?


Mr. Mutch:: As at September 9, 1950,
disabilities or aggravation thereof attributable to or incurred during world war II service:
1.	131,947.
2.	27,465.
Many veterans are pensioned for more than one disability, and the above total of 159,412 represents 92,519 pensioners.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Higgins:: Is a branch office of the Canadian farm loan board to be set up in Newfoundland? If so, when and where?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The board reports that the volume of business offered in Newfoundland is not sufficient to warrant the establishment of a branch office in that province at the present time, but that all applications for loans originating in Newfoundland are being dealt with by the head office of the board at Ottawa.



ROYAL GRAIN INQUIRY COMMISSION

Mr. Ross (Souris):: What was the total cost to the federal treasury for the Turgeon royal grain inquiry commission, pursuant to the order in council of 27th June, 1936, P.C. 1577?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 



$144,240.71.  IMPORTS OF FUR PELTS

[Stage Direction]
Questions Item and country
Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many fur pelts were Imported into Canada from January 1 to December 31, 1950?
2.	How many of each variety and from what countries were they imported?


George James McIlraith: 1 and 2. Statement showing Canadian imports by countries, of fur skins, undressed, by varieties, during the period January 1 to
December 31, 1950
Item and'	country	Number
China and Jap mink:
Japan	 13,200
United States	 131,304
Total	 144,504
Opossum:
United Kingdom	 2,072
Australia	 1,000
United States	 31,134
Total	 34,206
Raccoon:
United States	 188,304
Sheep and lamb:
Union of South Africa	 5,000
Australia	 12,883
Argentina	 181,902
Brazil	 510
Uruguay	 43,152
United States	 181,026
Total	 424,473
Marine animal:
United- States	 1,424
Fox:
United Kingdom	 205
United States	 7,528
Total	 7,733
Kolinsky:
United States	 27,520
Mink:
United Kingdom	 1,394
Alaska	 64
United States	 79,342
Total	 80,800
Number
Muskrat:
United Kingdom	 11,389
United States	 2,726,052
Total	 2,737,441
Persian lamb:
United Kingdom	 28,409
Union of South Africa	 46,979
Afghanistan	 9,507
Germany	  2,200
Iran	 988
Netherlands	 27,575
U.S.S.R	 5,148
United States	 885,314
Total	 1,006,120
Rabbit:
Australia	 155,668
New Zealand	 16,727
Belgium	 20,000
France	 448,215
Japan	 328,000
Switzerland	 6,000
United States	 1,487,135
Total	 2,461,745
Squirrel:
United Kingdom	 28,469
Sweden	 15,000
U.S.S.R	 9,000
United States	 1,165,588
Total	 1,218,057
Other varieties:
United Kingdom	 2,419
Argentina	 200
Brazil	 1,087
China	 24,400
Greece	 384
Japan	 150
Switzerland	 12,412
U.S.S.R	 1,550
Alaska	 64
United States	 754,977
Total	 797,643



BONA VENTURE, QUE., FISHERMEN'S WHARF

Mr. Courlemanche:: 1.	Between April and June, 1950, was any construction or repair work done to the fishermen's wharf at Bonaventure, county of Bonaventure, Quebec?
450

Questions
2.	If so, was the work done by contract or by day labour?
3.	If by contract, what were the amounts, and to whom was the contract awarded?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	By contract.
3.	(a) Total amount of contract $31,678; (b) Fortunat Bernard and Arthur Bujold.



ST. CHARLES DE CAPLAN, QUE., WHARF

Mr. Courlemanche:: 1.	Were repairs made to the wharf at St. Charles de Caplan, Bonaventure county, Quebec, in 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950?
2.	If so, what were the amounts spent for such work?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.
Fiscal years	Amount
1947-	1948	
$11,901.851948-	1949	
12,992.841949-	1950	
12,537.601950-	1951	
5,944.48



$43,376.77 ST. CHARLES DE CAPLAN, QUE., WHARF FACILITIES

Mr. Courlemanche:: 1.	In the year 1950, did the Department of Public Works construct protection or wharf facilities at St. Charles de Caplan, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, in front of, or in the vicinity of the Henri Leblanc property, or Manoir St. Charles?
2.	If so, what amount was expended?
3.	Who was the foreman, what daily salary did he receive, and how long did he work?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	$2,999.81.
3.	(a) Henri A. Leblanc; (b) $8; (c) December 15, 1949, to March 31, 1950.



SHORE EROSION ON THE GREAT LAKES

Mr. Lennard:: 1.	Has the federal government received from the government of Ontario or the lakeshore erosion conference, or from any municipalities (a) resolutions; (b) recommendations for the prevention of lakeshore erosion?
2.	If so, has the federal government made a survey of lakeshore erosion on the great lakes, and is a report contemplated with recommendations for a remedy?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	(a) No; (b) no.
2.	No survey has been made and no report contemplated, because as a general rule the matter of shore erosion and its correction is not a federal government responsibility.



SUPREME COURT OF CANADA


Mr. Coldwell:: Are judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada transcribed in the French language when the defendant is a French-speaking Canadian and when the original trials and appeals were heard in French?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The judges write their reasons for judgment in either English or French as they individually choose. After judgment is rendered, the solicitor for the successful party drafts the minutes of judgment and the formal judgment is settled by the registrar in the language so used in drafting the minutes.



MERCHANT MARINE


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	At what ports or centres can members of the Canadian merchant marine service write their examinations for chief officers (bridge) ?
2.	Upon what dates can these examinations be written?
3.	Have any of the offices referred to in No. 1 above been closed at any time during the year 1950?
4.	What procedure is followed1 in marking the papers?
5.	At what points are navigation schools maintained, and during which periods are courses conducted at these schools?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Department of Transport examiners are stationed at Vancouver, B.C., Toronto, Ont., Quebec, P.Q., Halifax, N.S., Yarmouth, N.S., and St. John's, Nfld. Examinations are held at these ports. Examinations are also held by arrangement at any other place where the number of candidates warrants the visit of an examiner.
2.	Examinations may be written at any time by arrangement.
3.	No.
4.	Examination papers are marked by the examiner conducting the examination, submitted to the supervising examiner and forwarded to the department at Ottawa for final approval.
5.	The Department of Transport conducts navigation schools at Prince Rupert, B.C., Quebec, P.Q., Saint John, N.B., Halifax, N.S., and Yarmouth, N.S. With the exception of the schools at Prince Rupert, B.C., and Quebec, P.Q., which are open only during the winter, schools conduct classes throughout the year. In addition the department gives financial aid to schools as follows:
Vancouver vocational institute, B.C. department of education,
Queen's university, Kingston, Ontario,
L'Ecole d'Arts et Metiers, Rimouski, P.Q.

A number of private organizations and local education authorities conduct schools at various ports throughout the dominion, but these in no way come under the control of the Department of Transport.



GRAIN COMMISSION-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. Wright:: 1.	Who is the present assistant commissioner, board of grain commissioners, in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	On what date was this appointment made?
3.	What positions did he occupy during the five years previous to his appointment?
4.	How many written complaints were received in this office (a) from August 1, 1949, to July 30, 1950: (b) from August 1, 1950, to date?
5.	What was the nature of these complaints?
6.	What was the cost of operating this office from August 1, 1949, to date, under (a) salaries: (b) expenses?
7.	What are the names of the members of this staff who were paid travelling expenses, and the amounts paid to each?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Mr. A. G. McLean.
2.	March 1, 1949.
3.	National director, National Liberal Federation.
4.	(a) 8; (b) 8; total, 16.
5.	Grading of grain, 6; weighing of grain, 1; storage of grain, 1; handling of grain, 1; settlement for grain infraction, Canada Grain Act, 2; infraction, board's regulations, 3; outside jurisdiction, 1; total, 16.
6.	(a) $14,815.16; (b) $3,275.22.
7.	A. G. McLean-August 1,	1949, to
January 31, 1951, $2,875.31.



CHEESE IMPORTS

Mr. Wright:: 1.	What is the amount of cheese imported since June 1. 1950?
2.	From what countries, and what amount from each country?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 
Mr. Laing:: ,
1.	What subsidy has been paid annually by the Canadian government for the maintenance of the service of the Canadian-Australasian line vessel Aorangi for the years 1945 to 1950?
2.	How many round trips per year does this vessel make?
3.	What was the total (a) tonnage of freight carried; (b) passenger list on each trip, eastbound and westbound, in 1950?
4.	What crew complement does this vessel carry?
5.	Is this service to be discontinued?
6.	Have representations been made to the Canadian government for continuance of this service?
7.	If so, by whom?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	None.
2.	On average, 5J.
3.	(a) The total tonnage of freight carried during 1950 was 16,391 of which 11,123 tons was eastbound and 5,268 tons was westbound.
(b) Eastbound passengers for each voyage in 1950: 390; 450; 420; 432; 320; 329: Total, 2,341.
Westbound passengers for each voyage in 1950: 480; 500; 485; 480; 480: Total, 2,425.
4.	325.
5.	The company has indicated that the service will be discontinued.
6.	Yes.
7.	By the Canadian Pacific Railway, on behalf of the Canadian-Australasian line, by the government of New Zealand and by the government of Australia.



CONTRACTS AWARDED, BY PROVINCES

Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	How many of the 80,000 contracts awarded in
the first nine months of the current fiscal year with Canadian industry were placed in (a) British Columbia:	(b) Alberta; (c) Saskatchewan; (d)
Manitoba; (e) Ontario; (f) Quebec; (g) New Brunswick; (h) Nova Scotia; (i) Prince Edward Island; (j) Newfoundland?
2.	What was the dollar value of the above contracts placed in each of the above-mentioned provinces?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.
Yukon and N.W.T	 87
British Columbia	 9,790
Alberta	 8,273
Saskatchewan	 1,425
Manitoba	 5,207
Ontario	 26,164
Quebec	 15,000
New Brunswick	 1,754
Nova Scotia	 7,889
P. E. 1	 206
Newfoundland	 689
Total
76,484

Questions
The difference between the total number of contracts shown and the figure of 80,000 referred to in ithe question represents the number of contracts placed in the U.S.A., the U.K. and continental Europe.
2.
Yukon and N.W.T	
$	254,059 24British Columbia	
33,574,746	46Alberta	
6,707,004	00Saskatchewan	
450,781	13Manitoba	
6,667,071	75Ontario	
214,436,014	47Quebec	
154,055,843	14New Brunswick	
5,468,998	37Nova Scotia	
23,003,602	68P. E. I	
329,551	97Newfoundland	
402,518	39Total	
$ 445,350,191 60
"These figures do not necessarily include the value of stores produced in each province, since in many cases contracts are placed with the contractors' personal representative or at a head office located outside the district where production actually takes place.



INDIANS


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Have any agreements been made with the province of British Columbia, by the Indian branch of the citizenship and immigration department, covering contributions towards the capital cost of school buildings that are to be used jointly by white and Indian children?
2.	If so, what schools are affected, and what is the amount of the federal contribution in each case?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) School district No. 52, Prince Rupert, $1,500.00; (b) school district No. 53, Terrace, $73,000.00; (c) school district No. 72, Campbell River, $18,728.00; (d) Telegraph Creek school district, $22,177.43; (e) Ashcroft school district, No. 30, $742.50; (f) Alberni school district No. 70, $25,264.29; (g) Nanaimo school district No. 68, $37,229.21.



BURLINGTON, ONT., FEDERAL BUILDING

[Stage Direction]
Mr. -Lennard:
1.	Has a contract been let for alterations to the federal building at Burlington, Ontario?
2.	If so, to whom was the contract awarded, and at what price?
Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1. Yes.
2. (a) O r v a 1 Easton, Freeman, Ontario; (b) $44,063.



POULTRY


Mr. Mott:: 1. How many poultry flocks in British Columbia were destroyed owing to the outbreak of Newcastle disease?

2.	How many birds were destroyed?
3.	In this connection, what amount of compensation has been (a) paid to date; (b) claimed but not yet approved; (c) approved but remaining unpaid?
4.	Is the Department of Agriculture making the new Doyle-Wright vaccine available to all poultry-men?
5.	Will the department approve the use of live vaccine for baby chicks?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	1949-50, 5; 1950-51, 346.
2.	1949-50, 18,052; 1950-51, 530,174.
3.	(a) 1949-50, $25,395.31;	1950-51, $722,-
849.71; (b) 1949-50, nil; 1950-51, $27,850.48; (c) 1949-50, nil; 1950-51, $45,301.54.
4.	The Doyle-Wright vaccine is being manufactured by the department for use by its officers in affected districts as a part of the department's control policy.
5.	No. The use of the live virus vaccine and the Doyle-Wright inactivated vaccine is incompatible; consequently the use of the former is not approved.



PENSION COMMISSION


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Of the appeals from decisions given by the Canadian pension commission, which were heard by travelling appeal boards in 1949, how many of those granted were decided as being pre-war disabilities aggravated by service?
2.	How many of those rejected were classified as pre-war disabilities not aggravated by service?
3.	How many appeals were heard by the travelling boards in 1959? Of those heard, how many were granted?
4.	How many of these appeals were decided as being pre-war disabilities (i) aggravated; (ii) not aggravated?


Mr. Mulch:: 1. World total, 635.	war I,	10;	world	war II, 625;2. World total, 934.	war I,	17;	world	war II, 917;3.	(a) 2790 (representing 1666 claimants); (b) 887 (representing 649 claimants).4.	(i) World war I, 11; world war II, 484; total, 495; (ii) world war I, 31; world war II, 959; total, 990.
Note; The statistics are from records division and represent disability claims completed and recorded with them. Actually, during the year 1950, a total of 1944 claimants appeared before appeal boards of the commission.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Knowles:: 1. How many married women who were receiving unemployment insurance benefits just prior to November 15, 1950, were disqualified and had their

benefits cancelled as from that date because of the terms of the unemployment insurance commission's new regulation 5A?
2.	How many appeals have been made to courts of referees by or on behalf of married women disqualified as set out in question No. 1?
3.	How many applications from married women for unemployment insurance benefits, made since November 15, 1950, have been rejected on the basis of regulation 5A?
4.	How many appeals have been made to courts of referees by or on behalf of married women disqualified as set out in question No. 3?
5.	How many married women were drawing unemployment insurance benefits as at (a) October 31, 1950; (b) November 14, 1950; (c) November 30, 1950; (d) December 15, 1950; (e) December 31, 1950; (f) January 16, 1951;	(g) January 31, 1951;	(h) the
latest date for which figures are available?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: 1 to 5. The information in the form requested is not available and could not be obtained from the records of the unemployment insurance commission without considerable expense and delay. However, the following available figures are submitted:
1	and 3. The number of women disqualified by benefit regulation 5A between November 15, 1950, and January 31, 1951, is as follows: November, 7,109; December, 2,186; January, 1,513; total, 10,808.
2	and 4. The number of appeals from disqualification under benefit regulation 5A heard by courts of referees between November 15, 1950, and January 31, 1951, is as follows:	November, 249; December, 374;
January, 78; total, 701.
5.	The percentage of females who established benefit years during the period January 1 to November 30, 1950, who were married women was 44 per cent. From this it is estimated that the number of married women on ordinary active claims was as follows:	on October 31, 1950,	16,416; on
November 30, 1950, 17,767; on December 31, 1950, 17,030; on January 31, 1951, 18,807.



CHALK RIVER


Mr. Cruickshank:: 1.	What compensation is paid to the dependents of anyone killed or injured while on duty at Chalk River?
2.	What amount, if any, was paid to the dependents of those who have been killed while on duty at Chalk River?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1. Employees at Chalk River are covered by the Government Employees Compensation Act, 1947, and in accordance with the provisions of this act the compensation paid to dependents is determined according to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act of the province of Ontario.
Questions
2. During the operation of the atomic energy project at Chalk River 1945 to date, one employee only has been killed while on duty, and this occurred in December, 1950. The widow of this employee, in accordance with the provisions of the Ontario Workmen's Compensation Act of Ontario, has been awarded an amount of $50 per month till death or remarriage and $12 per month for her child.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	What was the cost of the investigation into the alleged combine in the manufacture, distribution and sale of flour and other grain-mill products which was carried out by Mr. F. A. McGregor?
2.	What was the cost of the investigation into the alleged combine in the bread-baking industry in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia which was carried out by Mr. H. Carl Goldenberg?


Mr. Garson:: 1. Flour and other grain-mill products investigation
Fiscal years
1947-	48	
$11,706.151948-	49	
1,272.121949-	50	
2,236.81

2. Western bread-baking industry investigation
Fiscal years
1947- 48	 $ 6,392.84
1948- 49 	 12,503.61



$18,896.45 CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION  PUR- CHASES FROM WESTERN FIRMS

Mr. Goode:: 1.	What was the total amount of purchases on government accounts through the Canadian Commercial Corporation for the period November 20. 1950, to January 31, 1951?
2.	What was the total amount of these purchases awarded to firms west of Winnipeg, Manitoba?
3.	What was the total amount of the purchases awarded to firms in British Columbia?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	The total amount of purchases on government accounts through the Canadian Commercial Corporation for the period November 1, 1950 to January 31, 1951, was $204,578,681.72.
2.	(a) The total amount of these purchases awarded to firms in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia was $19,038,094.19; (b) Included in (a) is the sum of $3,105,790.89 which is the amount of purchases awarded to firms in Manitoba.

Orders for Returns
3.	The total amount of these purchases awarded to firms in British Columbia was $13,794,783.61.
These figures do not necessarily include the value of stores produced in each province, since in many cases contracts are placed with the contractors' personal representative or at a head office located outside the district where production actually takes place.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Dupuis:: 1.	What was the cost of erecting the Jacques Cartier bridge, including incidental expenditure, such as expropriations, soundings, etc.?
2.	What has been the annual revenue from the said bridge?
3.	What has been the cost of maintenance, including salaries, repairs, etc.?
4.	Has there been a deficit in the operation of this bridge? If so, in what amount?
5.	In what proportion is such deficit absorbed by (a) the government of Canada; (b) the government of the province of Quebec; (c) the city of Montreal?


William Moore Benidickson: Return tabled.


GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Have any new departments of the government or government-controlled companies been set up since January 1, 1950?
2.	If so, what are the names of the departments or companies?
3.	For what purpose were they set up?
4.	What are the names of the officials of each new department or company?


Mr. Bradley:: Return tabled.


PENSIONS-CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many retired civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the following brackets: (a) less than $20 per month; (b) $20 to $29.99 per month; (c) $30 to $39.99 per month; (d) $40 to $49.99 per month; (e) $50 to $59.99 per month; (f) $60 to $69.99 per month; (g) $70 to $79.99 per month; (h) $80 to $89.99 per month; (i) $90 to $99.99 per month; (j) $100 per month or over?
2.	How many widows of retired civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired federal civil servants, and also the number of widows of retired civil servants residing in each province?



CANADIAN FORCES-PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Mr. Thatcher:: What was the pay and allowance, or allowances of any kind, for each non-commissioned and commissioned rank in (i) army; (ii) navy; (iii) air force, as of (a) July 1, 1950; (b) February 1, 1951?


Mr. Campney:: Return tabled.



DIRECTORS OF CROWN COMPANIES-EXPENSES, FEES, ETC.

Mr. Bryce:: 1.	What amount was paid in the years 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950 by way of expenses, fees, etc., to the directors of crown companies?
2.	How much in each year to each director?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Hodgson:: For a copy of all telegrams, reports, recommendations, correspondence and other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department dated from January, 1949, to October, 1950, relating to the retirement of the postmaster at Bobcaygeon, Ontario, and the appointment of the present postmaster.



ATHERLEY, ONT., POSTMASTERSHIP

Clayton Wesley Hodgson: For a copy of all telegrams, reports, recommendations, correspondence and other documents, dated January, 1949, to October, 1950, in the possession of the Post Office Department relating to the retirement of the postmaster at Atherley, Ontario, and the appointment of the present postmaster.



CIVIL SERVICE-RATES OF PAY AND HOURS OF WORK

Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all correspondence, dated since January 1, 1950, between organizations representing civil servants and the government, including correspondence between such organizations and any cabinet minister, with reference to civil service rates of pay and hours of work.



CIGARETTES


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, early consideration should be given to the advisability of appointing a special committee of the house to consider the entire cigarette problem; its effect on moral, mental and physical health, especially teenagers and unborn children; fire hazard and other related details.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose today to tell any man or woman, boy or girl, that he or she may not smoke. It is my purpose to show what tobacco will do to the human mind and body, and as most Canadians are intelligent people I shall allow them to decide the question for themselves. I appreciate the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) did not ask me to withdraw my motion. I think it is to be expected that one of those senior in the ministry would look with favour on anything that is said for the good of the health of the people of Canada.

The government spends a great deal of money and time, and uses a great deal of manpower, in striving to improve the agricultural conditions of our country; to grow better grain, grasses, fruits and vegetables. In the field of animal husbandry the government spends much money in order that we may have better horses, cattle, sheep and "porkers", and also spends money that we may have better flowers. With so much money spent on the animal kingdom and on material things, why should the government of Canada not spend something more on the development of our young people? Somebody has said that a fence at the top of a hill is better than an ambulance down in the valley. During my brief life I must say I have come in contact with certain things that lead me to believe the youth of Canada would be well served if they smoked less, or smoked not at all. Of course we expect grown men to have more intelligence, because they learn from experience.
Let me give two examples. My first experience in Belfast very nearly cost me my job, though that was not in connection with smoking, which is clean as compared to the use of snuff. The paid hands of John Robb and Company in Belfast all ate in one big dining hall, and we had one man six feet four inches in height who persisted in carving the meat. He used snuff. I happened to say that if anyone used snuff in my presence when he was carving, something would happen; and I had not long to wait. He used his snuff and sneezed all over the roast. Of course no one would eat meat that day, but we pasted him with butter, and he never carved again.
There was a young fellow in Souris, Manitoba, at whose wedding I officiated. He was an outstanding football player, but I have known him to smoke a package of cigarettes between the time the game began and the time it was over. The superintendent of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company called me in one day and said, "Can you do something for Jim?" I asked what was the matter with him, and I was told that he was going to lose his job because his sight was failing. I called on Jim and said, "You are going to quit the C.P.R., are you?" He replied, "I certainly am not." I said, "There is something wrong, then; because the superintendent says you are. You are either quitting the C.P.R. or you are quitting cigarettes." He looked at his wife, who said, "Jim I warned you." Well, he did not lose his job.
Another case which came to my notice was that of George Rose, a fireman on the Canadian Pacific. He had a little crack in his lip, but he continued to smoke his pipe. Some years later I visited him in Winnipeg, and found him suffering from cancer of the lip
Proposed Committee on Cigarettes and of the throat; and he died in a terrible condition. Our Manitoba college football team had two rules:	a man could not smoke
and he could not use intoxicating liquors. A young star came in from the west. He was so popular in his home town he thought he could do as he pleased when he came to our place, but our team had to obey the rules. The very first day he was there he came on the field smoking a cigarette, though he had been warned about the rule. Dr. Fred Clark, better known as Fred, an outstanding football player and a man loved by all, asked me to speak to the boy. I said "Bob, you had better go back and take off your uniform; you cannot play today." He told me to go to the hot place. I did not go, but I tried to keep him out of there. At four o'clock the next morning I was called out of bed and presented with a very fine cigarette case and all the other accoutrements, and Bob turned out to be a real star. His father sent a substantial donation to our football team.
I am going to treat this question under three heads. When addressing an intelligent congregation it is my custom to use a text, and today I am going to use the words of Paul to the Philippian jailer: "Do thyself no harm." I repeat those words to all who are listening to me and to those who may read my remarks: "Do thyself no harm."
The first head is what the doctors think about it. The doctors believe it harms the throat. Dr. J. L. Myers of Kansas City says: Nicotine irritates the mucous membranes of the respiratory tract. Tobacco tar injures those membranes.	,
Therefore it is not a question whether smoking injures the throat, but how much it injures it. Anyone could enlarge on that. I could give the name of doctor after doctor to prove that cigarettes injure the throat.
The second point is that smoking destroys the appetite. Those who use cigarettes will know that if they have a hungry feeling, when they smoke a cigarette it takes away the nip of hunger. Dr. Walter C. Alverez, a specialist with the Mayo clinic, says:
When a man smokes excessively he is less likely to eat well.
Smoking can cause gastritis and ulcers of the stomach. The Ochsner clinic in New Orleans refuses to treat a patient for ulcers unless he stops smoking. Again I could enlarge upon that and quote the same opinion expressed by many doctors.
Smoking retards growth. A growing boy who smokes regularly does not sleep so well; he does not eat so well. I have in mind the example of a page boy in this house some five or six years ago, who, when he would go to the corner lot behind the west block to
456	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Cigarettes play baseball, had no heart for the game. One night I went up to him and saw his fingers pretty well stained. I asked, "Did you get those colours playing baseball?" He replied, "No, I didn't; I'm smoking." I asked what his mother thought about it, and he replied, "My mother wallops me." So I told him, "Your mother is your best friend," and I said I would give $2 for every month he did not smoke. He did not want to take it, but I said, "You are going to measure up and be a credit to your mother." I got from him a box of cigarettes with two or three remaining in it, and he did not smoke again. Later he left the page staff, and two years after that you would not have known him. He was physically fit and playing on a baseball team in this city. Smoking does retard growth.
Smoking harms the heart. These statements have often been made about the use of tobacco in any form. How about Buerger's disease, which causes poor circulation of blood to hands and feet and may necessitate amputation? Doctors are cautious souls and do not say that smoking causes Buerger's disease, but in the study of one thousand sufferers from Buerger's disease, one thousand turned out to be smokers; and a study of another 1,400 cases checked at Mount Sinai hospital, New York, showed that 1,400 were smokers. A check revealed that more smokers have coronary disease than nonsmokers. Doctors do not say that smoking causes heart disease, but they do say that smoking may intensify existing heart disease. Dr. Riis summed it up by saying:
It is, in short, never a help and often a menace.
But we do not need to go away down south for all these statements by doctors. I can quote my own family doctor, who is now in the Senate; I am referring to Dr. Howden, who told me once, "The men who die suddenly have been heavy smokers." And he added, "Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Dan."
Smoking has caused cancer. I have mentioned already the instance of the C.P.R. fireman who made no bones about the fact that his cancer of the lip and throat were caused by smoking. Dr. Alton Ochsner, of the Ochsner clinic in New Orleans, is convinced that there is a definite relationship between the increase in smoking and in the increase in lung cancer. Exhaustive research is now going on to determine whether or not smoking can cause cancer. Dr. Evarts Graham, of Washington university, in St. Louis, is conducting an extensive research. He expects to find that ninety-five per cent of patients with lung cancer smoke at least a pack of cigarettes daily.


It does harm the chance for a long life. I am quoting Dr. Pearl when I say that those who die suddenly are heavy smokers. He says:
The heavy smoker pays with 34-6 minutes of life for each cigarette he smokes. The pack-a-day smoker pays with 11-5 hours for each pack he smokes.
If Dr. Pearl is right, this means that the more one smokes the more harmful each cigarette is, and the more it decreases the smoker's life expectation. I do not think any man who smokes heavily believes he is cutting down his life span, but it is true. We have to face the facts.
There is the matter of cost to consumer. A package of cigarettes may cost only 36 cents. To sum up it has been found that habitual smokers have 62 per cent higher incidence of gas on the stomach; 65 per cent higher incidence of colds; 76 per cent higher incidence of nervousness; 100 per cent higher incidence of heartburn; 140 per cent higher incidence of laboured breathing after exertion; 167 per cent higher incidence of nose and throat irritation, and 300 per cent higher incidence of cough.
AH of this, of course, leads to doctors' bills, loss of work and a shortened life. The cost of a package of cigarettes may not seem to be very great, but actually you pay many times what it costs in money. Then, Dr. Riis, who wrote the outstanding article which appeared over a year ago in the Reader's Digest, said that when he started the article he smoked forty cigarettes a day. Before he finished it he was convinced that smoking was not good for him, so he cut down to ten cigarettes per day. He enjoyed the ten far more than he enjoyed the forty. He stated that it was just a foolish habit. This habit does harm the throat, the heart, and the appetite. It harms the growth.
I shall turn now to educationists. Principal Bancroft, of Phillips academy at Andover, says that tobacco is the bane of schools and colleges, and is increasingly so. Under its use boys go down in scholarships, self-respect and self-control. Listen to a statement of peculiar interest. Dr. Lewis said that in fifty years a tobacco user never took first honours at Harvard. Dr. J. W. Seaver, of Yale, says that out of the highest scholarship men only a small percentage, perhaps five per cent, use tobacco, while of the men who do not get appointments about sixty per cent are tobacco users.
Let us turn to the magistrates' courts. Magistrate Crane, of New York city, has said that ninety-nine out of one hundred between the ages of ten and seventeen, who appear before him charged with crime, have fingers

stained with nicotine. There is something in the poison of the cigarette that seems to get into the system of the boy and destroy all moral fibre. Judge Ben B. Lindsay, the famous judge of the juvenile court at Denver, says that he has been in a juvenile court for nearly ten years, and in all that time has had to deal with thousands of boys who disgraced their parents and brought sorrow and misery into their lives. He says he does not know of any one habit that is more responsible for the trouble in which these boys find themselves than the vile cigarette habit.
I do not need to go any further along this line. I do not need to deal with the army, navy and commerce. I shall, however, give a final illustration to show the company that men keep who give up the use of the cigarette or tobacco in any form. I shall quote now from Howard B. Bishop, of the Human Engineering Foundation, Summit, New Jersey. He said:
In the latter part of 1948 the newspapers reported that His Majesty King George VI was suffering from an affliction of his leg. His physicians were considering whether amputation would be necessary to save his life. This report reminded me of an English chef who had had a similar affliction many years ago and his doctor pronounced it as Buerger's disease and amputated both legs, as gangrene had set in and it was too late to avoid an operation. I recalled how the chef was a great devotee of tea drinking and smoking cigarettes, and I learned afterwards that Buerger's disease can only be cured by avoiding tobacco smoke. It had been explained to me that tea, coffee, and tobacco smoke have astringent properties that shrink the capillaries and therefore slow up blood circulation, causing the extremities to mortify.
An official of a Detroit auto factory told me once that when he had gone for his usual check-up, the doctor taped a clinical thermometer to his toe and took the temperature. Then the official was asked to smoke one of his usual brand of cigarettes and after a short time another temperature reading was made. When the official saw the drop in temperature caused by smoking, he decided that it was the logical thing to stop smoking.
With these and other similar experiences in mind, an air mail letter was immediately dispatched to King George. The effect of tobacco smoking on the circulation of the blood was explained to him, with the assurance that if he would quit smoking his trouble would clear up, and it would not be necessary to amputate his leg.
That is an outstanding example. I do not care whether it is a king or a page boy, he has to take care of his body. When we think of the people of Canada today, Mr. Speaker, spending $300 million for cigarettes and $633 million for drinks, it is about time we woke up and asked the minister to investigate both of these things, so that our youth will grow into the best manhood.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) in his desire to have
Proposed Committee on Cigarettes a committee of this house set up to study the cigarette problem as it may affect the nation.
I want to call attention to the fact that the resolution itself does not, at the moment, call for legislation. It merely calls for the setting up of a committee to study the matter. The resolution does not even state that the committee should make any recommendations. I believe, therefore, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) should look with favour upon such a resolution.
In giving my support to the resolution, I do not want to be regarded as a sort of killjoy. I am not that. As a matter of fact I think my temperament would perhaps be the opposite. I am a family man, and have raised three boys to manhood. A good deal of my life has been taken up in work with young people and young people's organizations. I want to see everyone as happy as the hon. member for Fort William, who sponsors this resolution, appears to be. I do not know that I have any strict scruples with respect to matters of this kind. I myself do not smoke, but almost every day that I am down in this part of the country I am offered a cigarette. I associate with people who smoke. Sometimes they ask me if I have any objection to their smoking, and I say no. Perhaps I do so for the reason that it would not make much difference if I had objections. Sometimes when I go home from meetings of one kind and another my wife tells me that I smell like a smoke shop, and she says, "Where have you been?" and so on and so forth. As 1 say, I do not think I am particularly strict in my scruples along this line.
However, I believe that there is a good deal of import in the intent of this resolution. I have read a little bit on the subject of the cigarette habit, and my belief is that it is making such great inroads into our national life that it might perhaps be as well if some sort of educational program could be put on informing people of the facts. If it is not conducive to bad health, all well and good; but if it is, it seems to me that the people should know about it. There do not seem to be any effective organizations which are presenting that side of the picture. Should the habit not be conducive to good health, I recognize the fact that to educate the people is not an easy thing, particularly when, over the air, in the press and through the picture magazines, the powers of the wealthy tobacco interests can spend money in their advertising which is carried on in a subtle fashion. I know that it will not be easy to combat that sort of thing.
I wish to refer here to just one or two authorities who, I believe, speak because they are in possession of the facts. In my hand
458	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Cigarettes I have a list of quotations from various people respecting what they believe is wrong with the cigarette habit. Here is a quotation from Luther Burbank, the scientist who died not so long ago. Luther Burbank says:
No boy living would commence the use of cigarettes if he knew what a useless, soulless, worthless thing they would make of him.
Hon. F. Choquet, judge of the Montreal juvenile court, said:
I have dealt with over three thousand boys and I regret to say at least ninety-five per cent of these boys smoked cigarettes.
Judge Crane, magistrate of New York city, said:
Cigarettes are ruining our children, endangering their lives, dwarfing their intellects, and making them criminals fast. I am not a crank on this subject; but it is my opinion that cigarettes will do more than liquor to ruin boys. There is something in a cigarette that seems to get into the system of a boy, which destroys all moral fibre.
Those are some of the remarks that have been made by judges and scientists. I might read one or two that come from outstanding athletes. There is one here from Ty Cobb, and here is one from Jack Dempsey, onetime heavyweight boxing champion of the world. The account I have is that he was offered a considerable sum of money if he would sign his name to a testimonial to advertise tobacco. The account says that Dempsey read the testimonial, and, turning upon the man who had asked for his signature, said:
You could not get me to sign that for ten times what you offer. I do not smoke cigarettes and never did. Do you think I am going to ask the thousands of young boys who read about me to take up cigarette smoking? If you had a harmless candy or soda water, I wouldn't mind giving you a testimonial for nothing, but I won't sign your testimonial for a cigarette.
Gene Tunney, also at one time heavyweight boxing champion of the world, said this:
To contract' the tobacco habit when the growth factors of the body are exerting themselves to their maximum is to handicap oneself physically and mentally for life. As director of the navy's physical fitness program, I can bluntly say that few things could be worse for physical fitness than promoting the cigarette habit. I have never smoked.
Those are a few of the quotations appearing in this rather long list. I now wish to say one or two things with respect to the matter of the advertising of cigarettes.
If a committee is set up, this is something that I believe should be gone into:	I refer
to the radio advertising that comes over the air, from all sources. Every kind of cigarette and tobacco is advertised in the cleverest and most subtle fashion. Sometimes there are read over the air certain testimonials purporting to be from physicians. When the testimonial is read, the voice changes. The voice is now that of some person you can 

imagine as being the family physician. Great cleverness is shown in selecting the proper type and tone of voice. The advertisement comes over the air almost as though cigarettes are a good thing for the health. That is a subtle thing and should be examined, I think. If the committee discovers that cigarettes are not conducive to good health, some modified type of regulation could be made with regard to radio advertising for cigarettes. We have regulations in connection with liquor, because we know it is not advertised over the radio in Canada. I should like to compliment the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation upon their regulations in that respect.
Advertising however does not always come over the air. Sometimes it is in magazines, and it is just as subtle when it appears in that form. I recall that last year, when we were voting the sum of $10,000 to the Health League of Canada, I raised the question of the advertising in the magazine published by that organization. The minister excused himself by saying that he was not responsible for its publication. We accepted his statement, in the knowledge that he is not responsible for publishing it. The fact remains, however, that we were granting $10,000 to the Health League of Canada which does publish the magazine. It is a good one and contains some first class articles.
In one issue I have before me I see an advertisement for cigarettes. Indeed I believe there are more than one. I have clipped this one out, however, because the advertisement contains the photograph of a very beautiful young girl, and it was this that attracted my attention.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And you a married man, too!


Ernest George Hansell: Well, I told hon. members when I began my speech that I was not too strict in my scruples about these things. As I have said, I was attracted to this advertisement by the picture of the beautiful young lady, who, one might judge, would be in her late teens or early twenties. She is shown as holding a cigarette in her dainty, well-groomed fingers. I would ask hon. members to note that the cigarette is not in her mouth- and in these advertisements it never is, because that would not sell the cigarette. This indicates the degree of subtlety with which these advertisements are framed.
The inference is, of course, that the beautiful young lady smokes cigarettes. If she had the cigarette in her mouth, or if it were hanging out a little bit so that she could not show her teeth-in fact, she might show a little bit of a slobber-no woman would want to smoke these things.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: A lady would not slobber.


Ernest George Hansell: Not only did I look at the picture of the beautiful young lady but I also read the advertisement with care. In small type I see these words, "Awarded the certificate of the institute of hygiene for quality and purity."


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The lady, or the cigarette?


Ernest George Hansell: It does not say; but the
inference is that it was the cigarette. We do not know what the institute of hygiene is; for all we know it might very well be some sort of ghost company or institute organized by the tobacco industry. The inference from the advertisement is that the smoking of these cigarettes is good for one's health-and this appears in a health magazine published in Canada. It would not be quite accurate to say that the parliamentary appropriation completely finances the publication of the magazine, because one might expect that the financing of the publication is made possible through advertisements of this kind. I do not know about that, of course.
I have set before the house the subtle way in which this advertising is done. One further comment, and I shall take my seat. I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) in his seat. I have no doubt he will say that this is a provincial matter, but I am pleased to see that he is listening. I venture to say that there is laxity in Canada in connection with the enforcement of the law respecting the sale of cigarettes to young boys and girls. I know this happens, because I do not go around with my eyes shut; and I have not brought up three or four boys without learning what happens. It is very easy for young boys and girls to buy cigarettes in tobacco stores, under the assumption that they are within the law in so doing.
There are laws in Canada governing this matter, and they should be administered in a more effective fashion. It is the duty of the authorities in the departments of justice in the provinces, and of the attorneys general, to make their laws in this respect effective.
I favour the resolution, and believe that it does not go too far. It is a step in the right direction. I agree with the suggestion that a committee should be set up to study the matter, with a view to learning the effect of cigarette-smoking on our national health.


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am
sure we listened with keen interest to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) and the hon. member (Mr. Hansell) who has just
80709-30i
Proposed, Committee on Cigarettes
taken his seat. Both hon. members are specimens of good health. We know both to be men of good character, and, without discussing too definitely one way or another the merits of the resolution, we can recognize both speakers as the embodiment of the objective each has in mind in connection with this resolution.
It will be recognized at once that the mover of the resolution has made a thorough exposition of the problem. Perhaps he will agree that the discussion has served his present purpose, and he might therefore be disposed not to press the motion at this time, on the understanding that for the time being the matter could be given consideration at the departmental level.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: When the hon. member for Fort William speaks he will close the debate.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, it would have been easier to speak at greater length to show the destruction of homes, timber and bush through the use of cigarettes. One of the saddest things is the injury done to unborn children. A child born in the west was treated for nicotine poisoning for fourteen days, and the doctors say that he will never be free of it.
I thank the minister for his promise. As he knows, both I and my hon. friend who has supported this motion will keep our eyes on him.


Mr. Graydon:: But do you get the committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw his motion?


Major James William Coldwell: If this resolution has any purpose at all, I do not think it should be withdrawn. It should stand. I object to its being withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The standing orders provide that in order to withdraw a motion an hon. member must have the unanimous approval of the house. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) has asked the permission of the house to withdraw his motion. Has the hon. member leave to withdraw his motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has not leave to withdraw his motion, I shall have to put the question.

Canada's Status


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I put the motion? The house can decide after the question is put whether it wants a recorded vote. I understand now that the house wants me to put the question. Those in favour of the motion will say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed to the motion will say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: : Call in the members.
The house	divided on the motion (Mr. Mclvor) which	was negatived on the following division:	YEAS Messrs:
Ashbourne	Knowles
Beyerstein	Lafontaine
Black (Cumberland) Little	
Blackmore	Low
Blair	MacLean (Cape Breton
Brisson	North and Victoria)
Bryce	Mclvor
Cardiff	McLure
Carter	Nose worthy
Cruickshank	Proudfoot
Decore	Quelch
Fair	Riley
Fairclough (Mrs.)	Shaw
Gagnon	Sinnott
Gibson	Smith (Moose Mountain)
Hansell	Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Hatfield	Studer
Herridge	Thomas
Hetland	Warren
Johnston	Whitman
Jones	Wylie-42.
Knight	NAYS
	Messrs:
Anderson	Fleming
Applewhaite	Fournier (Hull)
Bater	Fraser
Bertrand	Fulford
Blue	Garson
Bradette	Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Bradley	Gauthier (Lapointe) [DOT]
Brooks	Gauthier (Sudbury)
Browne (St. John's West) George	
Byrne	Gingras
Campney	Gour (Russell)
Carroll	Gourd (Chapleau)
Casselman	Gregg
Catherwood	Harkness
Cavers	Harris (Danforth)
Charlton	Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Chevrier	Healy
Claxton	Helme
Coldwell	Henry
Corry	Higgins
Cote (Matapedia-Matane) Howe Cote (Verdun-La Salle) Huffman	
Coyle	Jutras
Crestohl	Kickham
Croll	Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)
Dion	Laing
Dumas	Langlois (Gaspe)
Ferrie	Lapointe

Larson
Lefrancois
Leger
Lennard
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
MacDougall
MacNaught
McCann
McCubbin
McCulloch
McCusker
McDonald (Parry Sound-Muskoka)
McLean (Huron-Perth)
McMillan
McWilliam
Martin
Mayhew
Mott
Murray (Cariboo)
Nowlan
Parent
Pearkes
Pearson
Pouliot
Prudham
Richard (Gloucester) Richard (Ottawa East) Robinson Rooney Rousseau St. Laurent Smith (Queens-Shelburne)
Stewart (Yorkton)
Stick
Thatcher
Tremblay
Tustin
Viau
White (Middlesex East)
Whiteside
Winters
Wood-98.



CANADA'S STATUS


Mr. A. Phileas Cote (Matapedia-Maiane) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into early consideration the advisability of definitely recognizing our status as an international power and, for that sole purpose, of, amongst other things, introducing legislation repatriating our constitution as a Canadian document, deleting from the statutes of Canada, wherever it may be found, the word "dominion," proclaiming a distinctive Canadian flag as the flag of Canada and declaring "O Canada" to be the national anthem of this country.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in proceeding with this motion today is not to clear the chamber of the smoke with which it was filled this afternoon. My purpose is merely to give this house the opportunity that many other organizations throughout the country have had to indicate to the government that it is about time we created symbols establishing once and for all a spiritual aim for Canadians all.
We are now in the process of receiving immigrants in larger numbers than ever before, and these people are at a loss to understand why as yet we do not have what is necessary to create a spiritual aim which will line up Canadians of all creeds and races, neo-Canadians as well as the old loyalists. We cannot create a spiritual aim in Canada, any more than it can be created elsewhere, without establishing such symbols as a national anthem, a distinctive Canadian flag and a Canadian constitution.
That is the sole purpose of this motion. In these trying times, when we are moving toward larger operations in international politics, I want to rally Canadians from one ocean to the other. I believe it has been

Education
demonstrated in other countries as well as in the United Nations, which has created UNESCO to carry out its program, that we cannot hope to establish this aim for Canadians, unless we have such symbols. As I say, the sole purpose of this motion is to ask the government to consider ways and means of creating the symbols we need, and which have been lacking for so many years.
Motion negatived on division.



EDUCATION


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration means of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada, by the granting of- financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am probably even more surprised than most hon. members to have to say a word or two on this motion today. There were perhaps some reasons why I should not have spoken on it at this time. Those I have weighed with some care. One of the main reasons was the fact that we are looking forward with some anticipation to the tabling in the near future of the report of the royal commission on the arts and sciences. But since I am reasonably convinced that in that report there will be no recommendation in regard to general education; since, if I am a good prophet, the emphasis will be on assistance to university education, perhaps I should say a word or two on the former subject.
While I intend to speak largely in regard to general education, perhaps I should make clear my stand in regard to federal assistance to university education. I do not think anyone who has been in this house for the past year or two will be in any doubt as to that stand. The universities of this country are urgently in need of federal assistance. Their circumstances are such that they cannot carry on without such assistance. My own province has given a great deal of help to its university this year, and I have no doubt that is the case in other provinces as well; but there is some limit to the funds the provinces have at their disposal. During the war, of course, we had both increased equipment and increased staff in our universities. That program was held together by the very fine work done by this government-and I pay them tribute for it-under D.V.A. in connection with the rehabilitation and re-education of young veterans from the field of battle.
So much for university education. In the first place I should like to say that I do not regard this as in any way a political resolution. It was moved previously by a former colleague from Dauphin, Mr. Zaplitny; but when I moved the resolution for the first time it was supported by members of all political parties. At that time I think perhaps the greatest support, numerically, came from members of the government party.
The second point I should like to make is? that this resolution does not visualize any interference with provincial jurisdiction in the matter of education. I have reiterated these arguments so many times that I do not think I need weary the house today with a further repetition. I have spoken on this subject so much that to myself at least my arguments have become more or less hackneyed, and they may be becoming tiresome to other people. I would point out, though, that this is a cause in which many people throughout the country are interested. It has been the subject of resolution afterresolution by educational organization?,, notably the teachers' federations of many of the provinces, the Canadian teachers' federation, the Canadian Legion, the Canadian trustees' association, and innumerable others. Before long we are to have education week, and perhaps that is another reason why I should discuss this matter today.
While I was speaking of the reasons for being in favour of discussing the matter today, I should have mentioned that I did not want to lose the opportunity of speaking of it at all. In this house we have had instances of a private resolution being called and allowed to stand, then we have had nofurther opportunity of discussing it. I believe it would be betraying not only the teachers and children of this country, but the cause of education, if I failed to take any opportunity at any time, either in this house or out of it, to promote the cause of education. The little pamphlet which has been put out, apparently by the Canadian teachers' federation, says that education is everybody's business. I am becoming more convinced of the truth of that, and more and more people are agreeing with that particular dictum.
As I said, not only is the plight of the universities of this country urgent in so far as federal assistance is concerned, but so is the plight of the ordinary schools. Let me make it abundantly clear that I am talking about general education on the public and high school level. During the last debate there was some doubt about that. I would say that the two greatest needs are money for the payment of teachers, and money for the erection of buildings for educational purposes.

Education
I was interested in hearing the other day from an official of the Canadian teachers' federation that forty-eight per cent of the teachers in Nova Scotia are at the moment receiving less than $125 per month. In these times, with the present cost of living, you cannot expect people of the type you would like, particularly male teachers who have families to look after, to teach for that amount of money. Incidentally, I may say that a percentage of these are teaching on a permit, which is another condition that should not prevail in these inflated times when money is plentiful. There is lots of money for everything else, but there seems to be a dearth of it for education. Is it any wonder that, under these conditions, the recruits for this particular profession are not coming forward very quickly? I noticed that, according to a statistical report published by the bureau of statistics, only about half of the teachers that will be required a few years from now are in training today. This is a serious situation.
Now, as to the organization which might provide sufficient money so that these teachers can be attracted to the profession-I mean the right type of teacher-I know of only one organization capable of that task, and that is the federal government. I am not going into the story of how certain provinces are less able to afford education than others. I could, of course, state that the main object of this resolution is that there should be some equality-I will not say "some equality" but actual equality-of educational opportunity for all children in this country, no matter how they are geographically situated; no matter the race to which they belong; no matter what their economic status may be. The federal government is the only body capable of coping with this task.
When my resolution was before the house last time it apparently did not receive as much official favour as it did on an earlier occasion. Strange to say, but perhaps not so strange to one who has sat in this house for five years, I actually took hope from the fact that the support from the government side did not appear to be as strong as it had been. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who was leading the house on that particular day, turned thumbs down on this particular resolution. After that occurred I believe there was only one member on the government side, the member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode), who spoke in favour of the resolution. I said I had taken some hope from that refusal, and I explain it this way. I believed that the government had-dare I use this expression about a government-something up its sleeve; that it had some plans of its own in regard
	'
to the matter. Time and time again we have been told that the objection to this particular resolution, and it was brought up by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), was the words "for that purpose" at the end of the resolution. In other words, the government frowned upon a resolution which earmarked these particular funds when given to the province, or if it were given to the province-I wish I could use the past tense in that regard but I use the subjunctive which, I may say, sir, is a mood of improbability, a mood of uncertainty- for that purpose. It seemed to bring up the idea of provincial jurisdiction in the matter of education. It seems the dominion government has no right to say to the provincial government that the money must be spent for a particular purpose.
So far as I am concerned, I think that argument is arrant nonsense, especially if one considers the precedents that have been set with regard to it. If one can argue unconstitutionality in that regard, I think you would have a good case with regard to the special federal grants which are earmarked for the payment of old age pensions, family allowances, and so on. In the field of education itself we have a precedent in the fine assistance that was given universities during and after the war. We have federal grants in aid of vocational education, and the technical training schemes that took place during and subsequent to the war. As I said before, I do not believe that particular argument is valid. If the dominion government makes up its mind to do this thing, it will be done.
A moment ago I said that the government had hoped something would come out of the fiscal conference concerning the redistribution of taxes. But, sir, as I have said on previous occasions, I sat in the Senate chamber in 1945 and watched the break-down of that particular fiscal conference. Last year when I was debating this particular subject I was told to have patience, because we were going to have another fiscal conference. There was a conference on December 4 of this year. I presume the government will now say that, owing to this grey shadow which is hanging over us, we shall have to eliminate those expenditures which are not necessary. It is always the way when there is a war. We seem to be in a perpetual state of war now, or in a perpetual state of preparation for war, which, in regard to the expenditure of money, means very much the same thing. I shall be told now, although I hope not, that owing to the contingencies of the present emergency, money in support of education will have to be delayed for some time to come. I am afraid it is true that in

many of these emergencies, certainly in the case of war, education becomes the first casualty. After all, that is somewhat contradictory because, during a national emergency when our backs are to the wall, we find it is those same qualities which are built up by education that are necessary for the defence of this country and its freedom. My main reason for bringing this resolution forward today is that the fiscal conference this year did not turn out as we had hoped it would. The thing was simply abandoned. All the provincial premiers went home, and we have not heard any more of the equalization of the distribution of tax funds.
I have said that there were two main directions in which this money might be spent. The second one is in regard to the building of educational institutions, the assistance which the government might give to the provinces in that matter. The other day I heard about a school that was adding seven classrooms to its present number. We have today a tremendous movement of population. I think I should mention here the likelihood of the demand for buildings being greater in the future than it has been in the past. I am thinking particularly of what may happen in view of the international situation, namely decentralization of industry, and decentralization of the population of industrial towns. In any case, leaving aside the national emergency, the tendency towards decentralization in this country is increasing, I am glad) to note; people are getting away from their crowded surroundings, tenement buildings and slums and are getting out into the fresh air and green country. I believe that tendency is going to continue. In the next year or two I think we are going to see districts or towns with a thousand children whose education will have to be taken care of in some way or another.
As you will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, I have not presented the usual argument in favour of this resolution. I may say that I am amused at the way support comes in waves. I am thinking particularly of the support given to this particular cause by a great many members sitting on the government benches until the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) came out early in the last debate and turned thumbs down on the proposal. The Free Press of Winnipeg, which often follows the fortunes of the government with favour, was kind enough to devote a whole editorial page to my resolution, just after it was introduced last time. They followed government policy and showed the fallacy of this whole idea of moving for federal aid at this time. I said that I was amused at the way tides may turn, because just one year ago when I had the support of seven members on
Education
the government side and when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself perhaps not enthusiastically, restrained as he is by the limits of the responsibility of power, had a word to say which was at least not too antagonistic to my resolution, the Free Press and the other satellites were quite in favour of it; and incidentally I think that most of my colleagues from Saskatchewan, irrespective of what party they happen to represent in this house, know that their constituents are largely in favour of federal aid to education. The argument used by the Free Press and the other papers was exactly the same one which was presented by the Minister of Agriculture and, perhaps with less energy or, should I say, with less conviction, by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) who, I felt, was somewhat embarrassed in that particular debate.
I shall merely conclude by saying that I am not so much interested here in the technical points-and I think I have covered them thoroughly on various occasions-as I am in stating that every child in this country should have the educational opportunity that we would desire him to have. I am equally aware of the fact that those who are in opposition to this particular resolution know fairly well the feeling of the people of this country with regard to this matter-and know the difficulties. I myself realize the difficulties. But I believe that co-operation between the dominion government and the provincial governments can bring about now some measure of that for which I speak, and we shall all be looking forward to the day when, quite irrespective of marking or tagging funds for any particular purpose, there will be an equitable arrangement in Canada for the distribution of public funds. With that, sir, I shall take my seat and allow someone else to present the arguments which I might have put forward1.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this is the third consecutive year that the resolution now before us has been the subject of debate in the house. The two previous occasions were October 19, 1949, and May 22, 1950. The resolution that is before the house now is, I think, in its terms identical with the resolution debated by the house on those two previous occasions.
I share with the mover of this resolution the regret that it has not been possible to have before the house for consideration at this time the expected report of the royal commission on arts, letters and sciences headed by Right Hon. Vincent Massey; because undoubtedly some of the matters reviewed by that royal commission have a bearing on the matters under debate on the present

Education
resolution. There are, however, certain principles that, it seems to me, are well established and that must be brought to bear on the present resolution regardless of whether we have or have not the assistance of the report of the Massey commission.
On each occasion on which I have had the opportunity of speaking on this subject, I have begun with a firm assertion of the view, to which I cling tenaciously, that there must be no trespassing upon the rights of the provinces, under the constitution, in the matter of the content and the system of education. Section 93 of the British North America Act is one of the most important of the fundamental provisions of our constitution. It reads as follows:
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education.
Then follow certain reservations which are not directly relevant to the matter now before us.
I do not believe that anyone in this house, regardless of how enthusiastic may be his support for federal assistance, has any thought of trespassing upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures in the matter of education. For my part I give the most unhesitating and wholehearted support to the principle, the spirit and the letter of section 93 of the British North America Act. I can do that without withdrawing in the slightest the support I give to the resolution now before the house. It is possible to give strong support to the present resolution without in the slightest withdrawing one's attachment to the spirit and the letter of section 93 of the British North America Act.
What this resolution proposes is that federal financial assistance should be extended to the provinces for the purpose of "expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada." Inherent in one's approach to this resolution is necessarily one's belief in the value of education and one's faith in those who are charged in the various provinces with the education of our young. Education has played a leading role in the shaping of the history of our country, in the shaping of our young people to assume in due time their responsibilities as citizens and as leaders in the various walks of Canadian life.
In the second place, inherent in one's approach to the resolution is one's conviction that today, by reason of the fact that the provinces and municipalities are lacking in adequate revenue for the purpose, there is a necessity for finding additional sources of revenue out of which the increasing costs of education may be met.

Educational costs in this country have risen very rapidly in recent years. I am sure I need not weary the house with a recital of statistics to prove that. One has only to glance at figures showing educational costs in the various provinces to realize that these costs have been mounting by leaps and bounds. Of course, the youthful population of the country has been increasing; there are more people to educate. But, sir, the cost of providing educational institutions has been rising rapidly. We are recognizing the need for providing better equipment in the schools. Great advances have been made in educational methods, and in most cases they have brought with them the need for providing new and improved equipment and facilities. Then, sir, quite properly in. this country-and it is one of the features of the attitude of young Canadians upon which we ought to commend them and congratulate ourselves- they are appreciating to an ever-increasing degree the value of education in their own lives. More and more young people are seeking for themselves the benefits of higher education. More and more parents are dedicating the best efforts of their lives to seeing that, so far as their means and efforts will permit, their children will have better educational opportunity than they had. I am sure all of us know many people who are making sacrifices for their children to see that the dream of higher education for those children may be fully realized.
All of us would like to see greater equality of opportunity in life. A good deal of lip service is given to the principle of equalizing opportunity among the young people of our country, regardless of the means of their parents, regardless of the part of the country in which they may reside. There is one way in which it is possible to bring that principle out of the realm of hope and bring it right down to earth, so that it may have practical application, and that is by seeking in a practical way to equalize educational opportunities for the young people of this country.
While it will take dominion and provincial co-operation, if there is a will we can do much, through the avenues of education, to provide greater opportunity for our young people than has existed hitherto. In the different areas of this country the difficulties of trying to meet 1951 needs with the methods and principles of revenue-raising laid down in 1867 in the British North America Act have resulted in a disparity of opportunity in the different parts of the country. What I have said about the desirability of equalizing educational opportunity, regardless of the

Education
circumstances of parents, certainly applies to our young people regardless of the province in which they may happen to reside.
Standards of teachers' salaries are by no means equal in different parts of Canada.
I said a moment ago that the costs of providing education in Canada were advancing by leaps and bounds. There is one aspect of that advance in cost which none of us should deplore, and that is the belated tendency now to recognize the contribution the teaching profession is making to the country in the fashioning of young lives in our land by increasing teachers' salaries. I speak with some experience on the subject because my father was a member of the teaching profession. There are all too few municipalities which have had either the means or the will to give adequate and tangible financial recognition to the contribution the teaching profession is making to the moulding of their young people.
In my city the board of education is in process today of making substantial increases in the scale of teachers' salaries. There are many places in the country where the municipalities-yes, and the provinces-have not the means of providing adequate salaries for the teachers. The importance of the teaching profession cannot be exaggerated. While that profession is not going to attract people simply on the basis of the salaries paid, and while it will always have an appeal to motives other than the need or the wish to earn good salaries, nevertheless that profession must have offered to it salaries reasonably commensurate with the service that the members of that profession are rendering to our country, if we have any hope of continuing to attract to the profession the best minds in Canada available for the instruction of the young.
There is nothing more important than that service to the young people of our land, and this fact must be recognized. These various features I have indicated as establishing the importance of education, establishing the pressing necessity of providing assistance to the provinces and municipalities in meeting expanding educational costs, the desirability of using the vehicle of education to equalize to a greater extent than has been hitherto achieved opportunities in life for our young people, all point directly to the necessity for some such assistance as is proposed in this motion.
There are many well established precedents for providing out of the dominion treasury assistance to the provinces with respect to education. When I spoke on the subject on October 19, 1949, I mentioned some of these.
One calls to mind of course the assistance that has been given in times past by the dominion in the field of technical education. In the second place, we recall the very substantial contribution which was made out of federal funds to the successful dominion-provincial youth training plan.
Third, and probably the one that will leap to our minds as being perhaps the leading precedent, was the assistance provided out of federal funds for the training in various educational institutions in the provinces of no fewer than 130,000 veterans of world war II.
Fourth is the fact that we have been voting in this parliament in recent years sums averaging about $50,000 a year to the various schools of social work in the universities of this country. Some of us have been complaining that the federal grants have not been adequate, that $50,000 a year distributed among the schools of social work scattered right across the country has not left very much for any one school. The grants have, however, been very helpful. I hope that that commendable beginning will be advanced this year.
Then one could mention also the assistance given through such avenues as the National Physical Fitness Act and other precedents for providing federal assistance in this field.
There is also the vitally important field of research. Research is carried on in so many ways and in so many different types of institutions across this country. Universities, hospitals, schools, private institutions, philanthropic organizations and others have been carrying on this work. The house is well aware of scholarships that have been provided by such federal organizations as the national research council. Research is something that brings benefits, not only to a municipality or to a province, but to the entire country. Therefore regard must be had to the enjoyment of the benefits in all parts of the country in addressing ourselves to the need of meeting rising costs.
There is always a place for consideration of public opinion on this question, and public opinion, as reflected in the expressed views of those who have been studying this problem has, I think, shown that there is almost a uniform sentiment in favour thereof. There has been only the occasional rift, such as when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) spoke on this subject in the house on May 22, 1950, and made what I think most members of this house regarded as a most unfortunate speech. As I say, there has been a most impressive uniformity of thought on this subject among all the organizations

Education
which have been devoting time and study to it. I know that hon. members have received many briefs on this subject, and are well- aware of the thought that is being given to it in all parts of Canada.
Since the last debate on this subject on May 22, 1950, there have been two developments that I hope will have some significance in the view of the government. In addition to my reference to the unfortunate speech made by the Minister of Agriculture, I might also mention, in view of his presence in the house today, the rather surprising speech made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) on the same date. Many of us who have known the minister for a long time, who have known the importance of the part played by education in his life and in his advancement, and have known also of the encouragement that he has given in time past to the provision of scholarships, regardless of province, regardless of particular area in this country, were most disappointed in the speech that the hon. gentleman made on that occasion. It was not a speech that commended itself to logic. It was not the kind of speech this house was entitled to expect from the hon. gentleman.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am just reading it now, and it does not sound bad.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If it still sounds not bad to
the minister I suggest that the minister go right on reading because he could not have gone very far with the reading of his speech.
The first development of the two I referred to was the dominion-provincial conference, and the second was the rather important and, I hope, significant statement made by the Prime Minister on a recent occasion.
You will remember that when the Minister of National Health and Welfare made the disappointing speech to which I have just referred he sought in effect to invite the house to delay. He kept ringing the changes on the theme, "Of course, there is to be a dominion-provincial conference; just hold your horses, you who are supporting this urgent project, and we will talk about it at the dominion-provincial conference; anything said in the meantime on the subject must necessarily be premature." I should like to quote the essential words in the final and involved paragraph of the minister's speech, as reported on page 2729 of Hansard of May 22, 1950, as follows:	.
-and I would add . . . until we have had an opportunity first of sitting down and discussing these matters in detail with those jurisdictions of government which, under the constitution, have the exclusive responsibility in matters of education.
He indicated that it would be unwise to deal with these matters with any degree of

precision at that time. Let us take the minister at his word. Let us assume that there was some substance-I think we are being charitable if we do-in that pretext of the minister. There has been a dominion-provincial conference held in the meantime. As a matter of fact, a couple of such conferences have been held. Did the government put the minister in position to keep faith with the house in this matter? I am not quite sure. Let us hope that the government did make some serious effort to bring this subject before the dominion-provincial conference, and that this matter of mutual interest and high importance received there that joint consideration that the minister indicated in his view was required. In any event, that conference has been held and that pretext no longer justifies delay in this house passing opinion on this urgent matter.
The second development since May 22 last to which I think no little significance may well be attached, something to which the Minister of National Health and Welfare is bound to attach great significance, is the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) at the autumn convocation of the university of Toronto on October 27, 1950, on the occasion of the conferring upon him of an honorary degree of doctor of laws. In the course of his very notable speech on that occasion the Prime Minister led up to this concluding statement:
The universities are, without question, among the most precious of our national institutions. Now I recognize, and I believe most Canadians recognize, the wisdom of the provision of our constitution which made education perhaps the most important of all those subjects entrusted to the provincial authorities. This provision was designed primarily to safeguard both of the two cultural traditions which we Canadians possess and which, year by year, we are coming to cherish more and more, as we realize how greatly they enrich our national life. The entrusting of education to the provincial authorities has the further advantage of providing a measure of insurance against too great a degree of uniformity in our educational systems. No one with any real respect for our history and tradition would wish to disturb that constitutional position.
May I interject at this point to say that I give to those words, as I am sure does every hon. member of this house, my full and unqualified' support. The Prime Minister then went on to say:
At the same time, I think many of us recognize increasingly that some means must be found to ensure to our universities the financial capacity to perform the many services which are required in the interest of the whole nation. I hope you. Mr. Chancellor-
Let me interject here to explain to the house that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was addressing the chairman of the

royal commission on the arts, letters and sciences, Mr. Massey.
-in association with your colleagues in another of your capacities will be able to help us to find a proper solution of that difficult problem.
You will note that the Prime Minister was recognizing there that the universities of Canada-and he was speaking of them all- are not simply rendering a service to the provinces or to the local areas which support them, but are rendering a national service. That can be said of every university in Canada, some of course to a greater degree than others because some attract students from greater distances than others, but these are institutions that are rendering a national service. They do not attempt to draw provincial boundaries across the benefits that they extend. They do not try to draw provincial lines among the students who flock to their doors. These benefits are national, and regard must be had for the fact that today the provinces simply are not able under the present division of revenues to give to these national institutions the financial support that they require.
University professors, like members of the teaching profession in other levels of education, have been notoriously underpaid. The university of Toronto, the institution before which the Prime Minister made this particular speech, has recently undertaken a revision of the scale of salaries of those on the professorial staff at very great cost. That institution now leads the other universities of Canada in the scale of salaries offered to its professorial staff. Yet I am sure that no one in the house is going to argue that this salary scale is adequate. Certainly no one is going to argue that the salary scales obtaining today in the universities of Canada are generous. I say that they are not adequate, and we who are charged with national responsibilities may well entertain very grave concern for the future of these educational institutions if they are not able to attract to the ranks of their teaching staffs the best equipped minds for academic careers.
It is a most serious matter for all of Canada. It is no longer possible to confine the support of provincial institutions to those revenues that are provincial. The time is overdue when some needed assistance must be given for the expansion of educational provision in the provinces and for equalizing educational opportunity. Certainly all of the provinces have not the means at their disposal today. They are cramped in their operations because of lack of revenue, and some of them are feeling the pinch very seriously.
Education
Municipalities are notoriously ill-provided today to meet their share of the cost of providing education in the schools. A major advance was made in the province of Ontario some six years ago by the government headed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in this house when the provincial government assumed, in addition to the burdens it was then bearing, one-half of the total cost of education in the province, and in some municipalities, particularly rural municipalities where educational costs were falling with particularly heavy weight on the taxpayers, provincial assistance extended even up to 90 per cent of the cost of education in those municipalities. It was a great, farsighted and statesmanlike step that was taken for the assistance of municipalities in meeting educational costs.
Something of that nature is required in the broader sphere today. To close on the note on which I opened, I say it can be done by joint action on the part of the dominion and the provinces without committing in the slightest degree a trespass upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces over education. I reiterate that there is no thought, I am sure, on the part of any member of this house of making the slightest trespass upon or invasion of those exclusive rights of the provinces in the matter of education. But, sir, this is a matter in which I am sure success can be achieved, and will be welcomed by the provinces, if the government will be prepared, as it ought to do and as it can do, to sit down with the provinces and work out measures that will recognize the national benefits of education.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, on several previous occasions this resolution, or resolutions very similar to it, have come before the house for the consideration of hon. members. Upon each of those occasions my colleagues and I have taken a firm stand in support of the general proposition contained therein. In dealing with the subject of federal aid to education we, as other speakers have indicated, are certainly not unmindful of what has already been done by the national government in the field of general education. I too compliment the government upon what they did with respect to our veterans of world war II. Thousands of service personnel were enabled not only to complete educations but to acquire them. They have become better citizens as a consequence thereof, and we certainly commend the government for their action.
We also know what has been done by the federal government in the field of assistance for vocational training, and with respect to various technical training schemes that have

Education
been in operation at one time or another in Canada. Having said that, however, I want to emphasize that we are convinced the time has now come-as a matter of fact it is past due- when the national government, realizing the problems confronting school boards, municipalities and many of the provinces, should come forward willingly and voluntarily with substantial assistance towards education so that, as the resolution asserts, we can in the highest degree possible be successful in expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada. We should recognize that it is not only certain members of the Canadian House of Commons who feel that such aid is necessary. The school boards and many of the provincial governments realize it. The people generally realize the need and are in hearty support of extending such assistance.
Sometime last year I received a copy of a resolution passed by the school trustees' association of Alberta, which certainly indicates the feeling of the trustees in my province and, I am sure, of those in the other provinces as well. It reads:
Grants in Aid
Whereas various educational bodies in all provinces are concerned with the inequality of educational opportunities throughout the nation, and
Whereas the present sources of finances are insufficient;
Therefore be it resolved that we ask the federal government to give grants in aid in order that the provinces may be able to provide equality of educational opportunity.
In my remarks today, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to repeat many of the things I said last May, when I believe I occupied most of the time allotted to me in dealing with this subject. In view of that fact, and in view of the fact that in his speech during the debate on the address in reply last year my leader laid such stress on the general subject, it seems unnecessary for me to take more than just a few minutes. Last year the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) asserted that in his opinion nothing could contribute more to the internal security of Canada than a broad understanding on the part of her citizens; and that if democracy is to function successfully, yielding the results the people desire from the management of their affairs, there must be a high general level of achievement among the people.
We have pointed out from time to time that because of its very size and its widely varying resources and productive possibilities Canada has within its borders many areas in which incomes are much lower than in other areas. The degree of prosperity varies noticeably from province to province and even from municipality to municipality. Municipalities raise their revenue from taxes on real property, which in itself leads to a wide diverg-

ence of opportunity. In areas of particularly low production, where incomes are necessarily small, there is much less opportunity for boys and girls than would be found in areas where production is high and incomes are likewise high. The municipalities, from which the school boards acquire a substantial part of the money to meet the cost of education, are today drawing in excess of 70 per cent of their taxes from real property. That being so, certainly the revenue available to a municipal council in an area where conditions are not of the best is not sufficient to provide adequate educational opportunities, and the kiddies suffer as a result. The sponsor of this resolution indicated his firm conviction that we have nothing even remotely approaching equality of educational opportunity. Certainly I can subscribe to that after the years I spent in rather isolated communities doing my part, as a teacher, to assist in the work of education.
We fully realize that the revenues of provincial governments have been going up rapidly. It is also noticeable that an increasing percentage of provincial revenue is being devoted to educational purposes. The provincial governments are fully cognizant of the importance of education and are appropriating every available dollar for that purpose; but in most cases they are simply unable to meet the demand that must be met if we admit that equality of educational opportunity is a desirable objective.
Reference has been made to the salaries of teachers. Last year I pointed out that in the last five years in particular the situation has greatly improved in regard to these salaries. As a matter of fact in some provinces the average salary has doubled. But having spent a number of years in the profession no one can kid me into believing that we are yet even approaching the standard of salaries to which teachers are entitled. When you have regard to the training necessary; when you have regard to the importance of the work and compare their salaries with what others are earning-even common labourers, in many cases- I am sure it will be agreed that teachers are still notoriously underpaid. In fact, my own experience was such that but for the conviction that I was doing a valuable job of work with our youngsters I believe I would have quit and taken a job as a sheep herder. I would have had much less to worry about. Of course what kept me at it was my personal conviction that I was doing a service in endeavouring as best I could to make my youngsters good future citizens.
Then reference was made to the cost of construction. I daresay that capital costs of schools have increased by from 75 to 100 per cent, depending upon where the construction

is undertaken. That fact, together with the increases in the salaries of teachers and the high cost of necessary equipment, has created a burden that is becoming almost intolerable as far as many of our communities are concerned. If the government is not prepared to make grants in aid to the provinces, certainly it would be possible for them to assist very materially in other respects. For example, having in mind the heavy cost of capital construction, surely it would not be impossible, for the national government to set up a revolving fund from which money could be borrowed at a very low rate of interest, perhaps 2 per cent, for purposes of school construction. Some of the provinces are doing this already. We are doing it in my own province to a limited extent. I will admit frankly that not all the money in the world is available for this purpose, but much valuable construction has been undertaken in my province as a consequence of this money having been made available. The national government would not have to use any of its own money for that purpose, because I am not unmindful of the fact that they still hold approximately $12 million which rightly belongs to the educational institutions of the western provinces, if I may put it that way. Moreover, the Alberta school trustees association has taken a firm position with respect to that. In convention last year they passed a resolution which reads as follows:
Resolved that the provincial government be requested to bring pressure to bear on the federal government to release a substantial portion of the school lands fund, which presently amounts to approximately $12 million and is invested in dominion securities, for the purpose of establishing a fund from which school districts can borrow at a low rate of interest, for the purpose of providing new school accommodation, which is so urgently needed in all parts of the province.
I am not suggesting for one moment that $12 million would be sufficient, but if the policy is to be one of not granting more assistance than that then certainly even that would help. While I am not wavering from my demands for grants in aid for education, I am not unmindful of the fact that probably the government would not be prepared to do that, but they could give favourable consideration to the removal of certain taxes which bear quite heavily on educational institutions. In many provinces the school boards and the department of education are endeavouring to provide a better standard of education by bringing together several of the smaller country schools and setting up a three or four-room school, establishing equipment for limited specialized training in several fields, better qualified teachers, and so on. They are providing school buses to bring those children to the school, and are paying heavy sales taxes when purchasing
Education
the buses that are used for that purpose. Surely, the least the national government could do would be to give favourable consideration to the removal of those taxes.
In all that I have said in the last moment or two, I do not want it thought that I am prepared to accept these as substitutes for federal grants in aid to assist the provinces in providing educational opportunity for the children. Mr. Speaker, that is all I intend to say at this time. Suffice it to say in conclusion that my colleagues and I stand solidly together in support of the motion which is before us.


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak very briefly on the resolution which is before the house. Of course, we fully realize the implications of the constitutional problem as suggested by the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). But when we remember that in my own province, for instance, many years ago the government under Sir Robert Borden assisted in the construction of technical colleges in the city of Halifax and has contributed to their support and maintenance since, and when we remember that during the last few years this government contributed materially to the education of veterans, we realize that the constitutional problem is one which can be solved'.
If one reads the papers from my own province today one would find that there is, not quite an altercation but a difference of opinion, between the government and the teachers in Nova Scotia. During the last few years the educational standards of those teachers have been materially increased. Today we have a substantial proportion of college graduates teaching in our schools. The provincial government has assisted by increasing the grants, yet those teachers find that they cannot support their families and keep up the standards which they must if they are to do a reasonably efficient job in the profession to which they have been called.
It is not my purpose, however, to speak on the general educational problem this afternoon. For a very few minutes I should like to direct your attention to one particular field. During my lifetime it has been my privilege and pleasure to have been associated with one of the small colleges of this country. It is one of many, particularly in the east, although I realize they are scattered throughout this dominion. In the maritimes we have Acadia university, Dalhousie, St. Francis Xavier, Mount Allison, all religious denominational colleges but with only nominal denominational control. They are serving all classes in the community and are not receiving any government support. They are universities

Education
which have contributed materially not only to the production of wealth in this country but to political leadership and every field of national enterprise. I am thinking, for instance, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that this one little college with which I have been particularly associated has contributed at least one predecessor to the distinguished office which you now hold; has contributed three ministers of finance to this nation, two or three ministers of national defence as well as several other cabinet ministers and numerous provincial premiers. These contributions have been made in the past.
Today these colleges, sir, are facing a problem which is almost insurmountable. Not receiving government grants, they are dependent upon the income from endowment and gifts. They now face a situation where, owing to the incidence of taxation and succession duties, the endowments are at least not being increased and in many cases are depleted. Because of interest rates, the return on the endowments is gradually diminishing each year while costs are increasing. The net result is that students have been called upon to carry a greater share of the cost of these institutions until tuition fees today are as high as the traffic will bear. I believe that any further increases in fees will result in a diminishing student body. Yet the contribution, as I say, that has been made by those universities in the past, not so much because of the tremendous equipment which they have, but because of the quality of the professors, the character and leadership given to the student body by the teaching profession, has been a real contribution. Who has contributed more to the development of this nation than the teaching profession generally? I believe if anyone had to select a group from that profession, he would select that group of professors associated with the smaller universities. Many of them have had opportunities to go to the larger centres, but because they felt they were doing their duty and had a task to perform, they have remained in the smaller field and have contributed to the leadership these smaller institutions have given.
I suggest that something must be done about this problem. I do not care how it may come, but I am thinking of one particular solution which was recently adopted by this government. It has been said that 130,000 or 140,000 veterans received assistance from the government and went to college, some of them advanced in years. Some of them were not very good students before, but in practically every case these young men and women graduated from the university with distinction. The contribution which they will make
[Mr. Nowlan.)
to our life in the future will return many times over the cost to the treasury of that educational scheme. I suggest to you, sir, that at least a partial solution to this problem could lie in the field of national scholarships, not only for research. I realize that under the national foundation for research scholarships are given today in specialized fields and for graduate studies, but I am thinking of the field of undergraduates. Many young men and women who should go to college, who possess natural qualities that could be developed by the university, and who could make a tremendous return to our national development will be prohibited from attending university because of the cost of a college education. I am suggesting, sir, that we institute in this country a system of national scholarships which will be for the students in the provinces attending recognized degree-conferring universities, whether graduate or undergraduate. No greater return could be made to our national development.
I realize that there are stresses and strains through which we are passing. I know that the argument urged will be that we are bearing the cost of a national war, or what may be a war, and that the treasury is carrying a terrific load. We all realize that situation. But, Mr. Speaker, it will serve this country but little if, through great expenditures, we succeed in coming through the national crisis through which we are now passing and yet face a period thereafter when we suffer from a dearth of leadership, something that we need so badly. In this country that is expanding so tremendously and which has such great possibilities we need the leadership which can come from those young men and young women who are awaiting assistance and who must receive it. I suggest to the government that this is a field that should be investigated and that it is one in which definite action must be taken. Whatever approach may be made, I say without fear of successful contradiction that no expenditures which will be made by the dominion government in any particular field can give a greater return for the future than those suggested by myself and by others who have spoken on this resolution this afternoon.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS	-

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. J. W. Noseworihy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution standing on the order paper in the name of the hon.

member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight). That resolution is in these words:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration means of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada, by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose.
I think we all realize that at this time the government is already doing a great deal toward expanding educational opportunities. I note that within the past ten years two departments of government alone have spent about a quarter of a billion dollars in support of vocational education at the secondary school level, and about $160 million for the training and educating of veterans. Many departments of government are concerned with and contributing to educational expansion and opportunity in Canada.
This resolution however does not pertain particularly to any specialized form of education. In the past the policy of the government has been to grant sums of money earmarked for special educational purposes. What those of us who support the resolution are asking is that the federal government should undertake to contribute to elementary, secondary and university education-to general education, rather than to special forms of education.
There are many reasons why the government should contribute to the expansion and equalization of educational opportunity. The history of education in practically every country of the world has followed much the same pattern. In pioneer days in every country the parents of children were required to provide education for their children and to pay for that education. As communities became organized, the smaller communities and municipalities proceeded to undertake, first, part of the cost of that education and, later on, to bear most of that cost. The next step was the contributions made by provincial and state governments to the municipalities in support of education.
We in Canada have followed the usual pattern up to that point; but we are one of the few, if any, countries in the world today where the federal or national government does not contribute to the general educational program of the country. We are the only part of the commonwealth, the only country of which I am aware, with a federal and provincial or state governments, where the central or national government has not undertaken definitely to contribute to the general elementary, secondary and university education.
I shall give four reasons

and while I believe they have been given in the house before, they will stand repeating. The first is that education today is a "must" for every
Education
boy and girl. It is universally recognized that educated youth can make better citizens than do the uneducated. We found out during the last war that we had to send thousands of those who had enlisted back to school to learn to read, to write, to learn to do arithmetic, and to learn geography and history. Many thousands of others had to take specialized training in school for the army, the navy and the air force.
Necessary as education was for war, it is infinitely more essential in the day to day life of civilians throughout the world as it exists at the present time. It is vitally important to Canada as a nation that our youth receive every educational advantage we can give them. Regardless of the British North America Act, regardless of any difference of opinion that may exist between federal and provincial governments, education has become the nation's business, whether or not the nation undertakes to pay her share of the costs.
In the second place we educate Canadian boys and girls to become citizens of Canada. I doubt if there is any phase of national life today that contributes more to parochialism and provincialism than does our educational system. We should try to remember that we are not educating boys and girls to be citizens of the province of Ontario, or the province of Quebec, or of any other province. We should try to remember that those boys and girls become Canadian citizens. At least one out of every three moves out of the province in which he or she was educated, to live in another province.
So that the educational attainments of any boy or girl in any province become a matter of importance to every other province in the dominion. To overcome our provincialism we should seek to give our youth education that will enable them to become Canadians. Canada as a nation, and the federal government as the government representing the nation as a whole, and the government collecting the taxes from the nation at large, should, in our opinion, bear its share of the national educational cost.
In the third place, because every young Canadian boy or girl is a Canadian he is entitled to equal educational opportunity, so far as physically possible, with every other Canadian. There are factors which determine and will continue to determine the degree of education which a youth will attain. In many instances that degree of education is determined, by his ability and his willingness to avail himself of the opportunities offered. In this country financial reasons shculd

Education
never be an important factor in determining the educational opportunities offered to any youth.
As long as school costs are distributed as they are at the present time with the municipality bearing the major share, with the province assisting and the federal government remaining on the sidelines, inequalities in educational opportunity will continue to exist. The opportunities available to young people will be determined by the wealth of the municipality or province in which they live rather than by the national wealth. The type of school, the equipment, the qualifications of teachers will all vary widely according to the financial status of the municipality and the province. Educational opportunities open to youth should never be determined on that basis. The educational opportunities which we offer our youth should be on a national basis and not on the basis of what any one province or municipality can provide.
The fourth reason is that educational costs are advancing. The standards of education which young people require in order to fit themselves for the world today are increasing year by year. This burden is becoming too great for some of our municipalities and provinces to carry. That increasing cost of education makes it 'all the more essential that the one government which raises taxes on the national level should undertake to bear its share of the burden.
We have heard objections raised in this house, but to my mind none of them is valid. It is high time that this government told us in this debate, either through the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) or some other minister, just where the government stands on this question. When the subject was last debated in the house we were then on the eve of a dominion-provincial conference and it was understood that in all probability this question would be brought before that conference. That conference has come and gone and I suggest that it is high time that we should know what happened at the conference as far as this particular subject is concerned. Was the question discussed? Were any suggestions put forth by the federal or provincial governments? Is the government in favour of or opposed to federal support for elementary, secondary and university education?
One argument that I have heard raised is the fear of the provinces that the federal government will begin to meddle with education in the provinces if it supports general education. I fail to see any validity in that argument. Through the war years the government co-operated with the provinces in numerous educational enterprises. There was

never any difficulty in securing the co-operation of the governments at those two levels. There was never any question of the federal government taking away the right of the provinces to lay down educational policy and to administer education within the provinces.
That question could be solved as most of our other dominion-provincial difficulties have been solved provided there is the will on the part of the provincial and dominion governments. In numerous instances where there has been an overlapping of authority we have found that when the will to overcome those difficulties exists on the part of the federal and provincial governments a way was found. I am confident that if this government were to indicate its intent to support education at the elementary and secondary school levels there would be no difficulty working out a formula with the provinces whereby the provinces could be assured that there would be no interference with their jurisdiction.
I noticed an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Daily Star of Friday, May 26, 1950, just after we had the debate on this subject in that session. Up to that time this paper had fairly consistently supported the principle of federal aid to education. During the debate some hesitancy and opposition was shown by cabinet ministers toward federal aid to education. The Toronto Daily Star, falling in line, as it always does, with expressed government policy, came out with this sound and serious argument against federal aid:
In the absence of specific provisions there would be nothing to prevent any province reducing its own outlay by the amount received from the dominion government.
The best argument that that paper could put forth against federal aid to education was that if the federal government gave aid to education there was nothing to stop a particular province reducing its grant to education by the amount given by the federal government. Surely it would be just as easy to secure an undertaking on the part of a province that it would not reduce its present contribution to education because a federal grant was being made as it was to secure agreements with the provinces that they would not reduce the amount paid to old age pensioners because the federal government was making a contribution.
One thing that has bedevilled education in this country, not only throughout our lifetime but throughout the whole history of our country, is the conflict between the public and separate schools in some of our provinces. The supporters of separate schools fear that if the federal government steps in with federal grants then they are likely to

interfere with the right of the separate school authorities to lay down their own curriculum and administer their own school system. The supporters of the public schools, the Protestant schools, fear that if the federal government comes into the picture then some of the taxes collected from Protestants by the federal government will go to the support of separate schools in certain provinces. Is it not high time that we undertook to look at the question of education not from a provincial or even a religious point of view but from a national point of view? Are our children to go on being deprived of the best that we can give them in education simply because two religious denominations in this country fail to agree on certain principles regarding schools?
Are we not sufficiently adult, regardless of whether we live in Quebec or Ontario, whether we are Protestant or Catholic, to know that it is the child's interest that is of importance? Can we not see that every child, regardless of whether he is a Jew, gentile, Protestant or Catholic, from Ontario or Quebec, gets the very best by way of educational opportunity that this country can afford? We can only do that if the federal government is prepared to come to the assistance of education. On the question of educational opportunity the Rowell-Sirois report had this to say:
The most economically distressed areas are the ones least capable of supporting these educational services, and yet are also the ones in which the needs are likely to be greatest.
Then I should like every member to pay particular attention to what follows:
Not only national duty and decency, if Canada is to become a nation at all, but equity and national self-interest demand that the residents of those areas be given average services and equal opportunities.
The report goes on to say:
In the modern age contact and intermingling of the population between favoured and unfavoured regions is bound to occur. The more fortunate areas cannot escape the pressure on their standards and the effect on their peoples; in this case prevention, in both fiscal and human terms, is much cheaper than the cure.
Apart from the general field of education, there is one special branch to which I should like to refer, and for which I should like to appeal for government aid. I refer to the question of scholarships, particularly for the undergraduates of our universities. We have read a great deal in the papers recently about underpaid university staffs, increased fees, and the increasing difficulties confronting young people who want to attend a university. I merely want to call the attention of the house to a report which appeared in the Globe and Mail of April 26, 1950, with reference to the situation in Australia.
Education
According to that report Australia's permanent plan for the provision of university scholarships calls for 3,000 university scholarships a year, with each of these scholarships to continue for three years. Therefore when the plan is in full swing there will be 9,000 university scholarships being paid each year in that country. There are no strings attached. The report has this to say:
Winners can take any first degree course and most diploma courses at universities, technical college diploma courses and other professional courses. Part-time as well as full-time courses are included. . . . All scholarships will provide for tuition and . other compulsory fees without a means test. Living allowances will be subject to a means test.
If the pupil's parents are in receipt of an income over and above a fixed amount then the living allowance is graduated on that basis. Mature students who are married receive allowances for wives and children. If Australia can make such a generous contribution in the field of university scholarships then, notwithstanding the fact that we are embarking upon a rearmament program that will take a great slice of our national revenue, I feel that we cannot afford to neglect education. If we had spent more money on our schools and our children before the war we would not have had to take so many thousands of them back to school in order to equip them to be able to carry on in the services. Nor would the government have been called upon to spend over $160 million giving education to veterans to which they were entitled as boys and girls and young people at elementary and secondary schools.


Mr. G. M. Murray (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I am opposed to the resolution. At the same time, however, I feel that the government of Canada might very well provide certain assistance in the field of education, more particularly along technical lines. I have a paper here issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs which shows the work they are doing in instructing young men in how to build their own homes. That kind of education is most desirable at this time. It does not involve us in questions of provincial or federal rights. I was very much impressed the other day by the address of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In referring to the alarms of war that we are hearing he stated that we were short of certain strategic metals. He said we needed cobalt, molybdenum, antimony, tungsten, chromium, magnesium, cinnabar, titanium, and manganese. Our war effort will fail if we do not secure supplies of these vital strategic war metals from some place in the world. I think we might very well encourage the mining schools at Queen's university, the university of British Columbia and elsewhere across this country, so that research might be

Education
carried on along these lines and so that young men may be trained to go out and find these materials which may very well stand between us and defeat in the days ahead.
In my own riding of Cariboo are ample supplies of many of these strategic metals. The old-timers knew where there was manganese, for instance. They knew where there was molybdenum; but there was no market for these metals in the old days and we lost track of the discoveries that were made from time to time in the Cariboo, in the Cassiar country, in the Omineca, in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, where these metals may be found in great quantities.
So my suggestion is that we leave these academic discussions and speeches, which were popular in the earlier days when we were not faced with the severe trials now ahead of us, and become more objective. Let this government assist the mining communities of the country by helping train the necessary men. This very spring we could send into the field geologists, prospectors and others to search the northwestern part of this country, so that next fall the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) might be able to rise in his place and tell us that we in Canada have an abundance of these vital metals.


Joseph Henry Harris: May I be
privileged, sir, to speak not as an ordinary member of parliament, but as one who has the privilege of being a chemical engineer and analytical chemist, and who has a fair knowledge of what was just discussed by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) in regard to the tremendous possibilities lying ahead of this country. In just two or three sentences I should like to express my appreciation of the remarks that came from my right, though not so much appreciation of those coming from my left.
I am one of those who believe in the British North America Act. The responsibility in connection with property and civil rights still rests with the provinces, but the responsibility with respect to our natural resources rests with us because Providence has been kind to us and has distributed an abundance of these natural resources throughout this great country. For that reason I find it very easy to endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Cariboo. But just how are we going to bridge that gap between the division of responsibilities under the British North America Act and the God-given natural resources of this country? That is a problem to which the next generation or two must give a great deal of thought.
I love the British North America Act and the way it sets out our responsibilities; yet

I am sensible enough to realize that we must give considerable thought to the position in which we find ourselves as mentioned by the hon. member for Cariboo. I have had the privilege of having been all around the world, even in Russia. I have been able to gather some idea of the potentialities of this world, and the more I think about it the more I am convinced that we in Canada have been particularly blessed. I do not get scared and in a panic over what is going on in the world just now. I believe some of the scare headlines we see in the press may be a little hard for the ordinary, immature men and women of this country to appreciate, but I do hope those of us who are past forty and over the hill will not be too much carried away by them. We should all stop and think before we get too excited over what is going on elsewhere, though the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) may not agree with what I am about to say. Let us not be carried away by these headlines. Let us stop and think of the position we enjoy in Canada. Let us try to coalesce our ideas in such a way as to take full advantage of what Providence has given us. At the same time let us remember our responsibility as Canadians to develop our country to the full and at the same time hang on to the tenets of the British North America Act for the benefit of future generations.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support this resolution I do not want to approach the subject as an educator; far from it. I want to approach it as a layman, and not so much has been said from that angle. I find that in the country, perhaps more particularly in my own constituency, they have great difficulty getting by on the grants they receive today; and you must remember that the education my children were given was far ahead of my own education. That process continues; we expect far better education for our children than we received ourselves. I am quite sure that when my grandchildren come along they will look for an even better education than I was able to give their father or mother.
In the cities today the people are gradually being driven into the surrounding municipalities, and you find that many of them go to districts where there are no schools. These school districts just do not have the money to build new schools and pay additional teachers. There is also the movement of people from the large centres to the adjacent municipalities that have not the money either to build schools or to pay for additional teachers. It becomes necessary for the federal government to step into the picture. Perhaps in some cases new rooms could be added to the schools, but at other times a new building is needed. Under the Veterans Land Act

the government started whole settlements in which there were no schools, and very little assessment for schools. In some cases, the only revenue was from the assessment on a quarter-section of land. New schools have had to be built, but no assistance has been forthcoming from the federal government.
Then you find that wages are going up. There have been grants, but the grants have amounted to practically nothing. I have a copy of an editorial which appeared in the St. James Leader on February 15. This paper is published in one of the municipalities in my constituency. I shall not quote the whole thing but I want to take time to quote a portion of it. It says:
The total grants for St. James will amount to some $6,000 more than in 1950 for 1951. But St. James normal salary increases, plus additions to staff for increased school population, already total some $20,000.
The teachers' society has now come forward with a demand for a flat increase per teacher in suburban schools of $360 per year. This has not yet been negotiated but there is no doubt that considerable increases will be forthcoming.
Actually, and for St. James only, the government grant per teacher has decreased over 1950 by $18 per teacher.
It is extremely likely that St. James taxpayers are going to be faced this year with a considerable increase in the rate of taxation in view of the foregoing analysis of the change in government school grants, coupled with the increased expenditures.
When it is recalled that a St. James teacher starts with a minimum salary of $1,400 per year on the present basis, there can be no question of the justice of the teachers' claim for an increase in the annual increment.
Let us consider the inequalities in the educational system today. You have heard that in British Columbia they spend $115 per pupil; in my own province we spend $100 per pupil; in Prince Edward Island they spend $45 per pupil. I do not need to tell the house the advantages the city boy or girl has over the country boy or girl because the cities pay higher wages. The teachers sell their labour on the highest market. School districts have little revenue to meet these additional salaries, and that is where the federal government could step in again.
In my own province there are permit teachers. This is a provincial matter, but if the federal government could give scholarships to these permit teachers it would help. I have every respect for them when they are trying to earn their way through normal school, but at the same time teaching school on a grade 11 certificate is not of advantage to the pupil in the country school where these teachers are used. Up until now teachers' salaries have never been sufficiently attractive to bring all the best brains to the
Education
profession. If better salaries were paid, better people would be obtained. I think that many teachers leave the profession because they can command better wages elsewhere.
This resolution does not ask for equality in the different provinces. It merely asks for a more equitable distribution of the funds for educational purposes. I think far more financial aid could be given. We hear that there would be interference with the provincial educational program, but I am quite sure that this resolution does not ask for that. Every province would still retain its own program, and would be given more financial support to enable that program to be carried out.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be very brief. I am entirely in accord with the suggestion that land taxes cannot support the cost of education today. I merely say that I am entirely in accord with the resolution.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: May I
lend my voice, Mr. Speaker, to the support of this resolution. The member for Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) presented the views of most of us in a very concise way. There are a few things, however, that I should like to emphasize. The burden that is today being placed upon those who own property, as I mentioned in the throne speech debate, is almost unbearable. Some people are finding they have to sell their homes in order to gain relief from the taxation burden.
While I am referring to this question of the burden on land owners, I should like to have the privilege of reading an article to the house, and when I have completed it I shall tell you its origin.
I wish to say that a mighty change has come in the affairs of our city and our ideals are utterly unlike those of our leaders in a previous generation. When I was a boy it was considered not only safe but honourable to create an estate, so that almost all men of standing wished to add to their possessions and felt a certain dignified honour in prospering, but now one must apologize for any success in business as if it were the utter violation of the moral law so that today it is worse to seem to prosper than to be an open criminal.
Criminals can get off with a a small punishment or a pardon but there is no escape for the prosperous, as they are doomed to utter destruction. You will find more men banished for their wealth than criminals punished for their crimes.
I should like the house to tell me who wrote that, and when.


Gordon Graydon: Was it M. J. Coldwell?


Harry Oliver White: No, sir, it was written by Socrates two thousand three hundred and five years ago. I believe that all provinces would welcome aid from the

Education
federal government. They do hesitate, however, because I believe they are afraid that there will be some strings attached to it that are obnoxious. I find that in the British commonwealth Canada is the only country in which the federal authority does not contribute up to fifty per cent of the cost of education. Teachers probably occupy the most important position in society, and have greater influence than any other individuals in society upon the youth of our land. I think we should pay more attention to this matter of education. Any aid that the dominion may see fit to extend will certainly be appreciated by those who are burdened with taxation at the moment. I think that aid could be extended on the per pupil per capita basis more fairly than in any other' way.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on this resolution. It has been before this house on at least three occasions and has received a thorough discussion. The last time it was before the house I was of the opinion that the government intended to do something about it. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was interested and. I think we all felt reasonably sure that it would be on the agenda of the last dominion-provincial conference; but apparently it was not. Federal aid to education, in my opinion, means merely subsidy to education; and the government is fairly strongly committed in the matter of subsidies. They have no hesitation in subsidizing an industry that is considered to be uneconomic but necessary to the economy of the country. They subsidize the grain industry; they heavily subsidize the coal and the steel industry in Nova Scotia and, as my hon. friend reminds me, they subsidize the gold mining industry. If the government's policy is to subsidize the gold, steel, coal and grain industries, I think they should not be averse to subsidizing education.
I am concerned only with one aspect of the matter, namely teachers' salaries particularly in the "have-not" provinces. I know that in the maritimes the teachers' salaries leave much to be desired. I have not the same grievance as has the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce). I think the teachers in my own province are highly qualified. In the matter of providing schools, I think a good job has been done throughout the province;
I know in my own end of the country a real good job has been done in the past three or four years. But the teachers' salaries in Nova Scotia are extremely poor.
By a press report today I notice that this matter is before the provincial government at the present session of the legislature. One member in his speech gave a great many

figures which I am not going to read all through, but he stated that the teachers on the island of Cape Breton received, on an average, $1,190 a year. That is a rather unreasonable salary for a qualified person in this day and age. There is not a labourer in this country who receives a small income of that kind. The incomes paid in any of the skilled trades put that figure to shame. That is not much more than the old age pension because, with pension and other earnings, the old age pensioner is allowed $1,080 a year. But here is a teacher, who takes a child from the time he is in the first grade and pilots him right through high school, receiving an average of $1,190 a year. If we are prepared to subsidize commodities, I think we should be prepared to subsidize education because the moulding of citizens is, I think, a much greater and a much more serious responsibility that falls upon the government.
I am not so greatly concerned about the universities, because if a person gets through high school he has a fairly good grounding in citizenship; at least he has sufficient grounding to go out and do something for himself in many fields. In the matter of building citizenship I think the most important grades are the lower ones, because boys and girls in those grades are in their formative years. Teachers who receive the kind of income to which I have referred certainly cannot put their minds on their work and do the kind of job they could be doing. To boil the matter down and simplify it, it is a matter of money. It is a matter of the federal government's determining whether or not they are prepared to give some assistance to our future citizens by relieving from economic insecurity the teachers who have charge of them in their formative years, so that they may be able to think in terms of building better citizens and a better Canada. The matter is a financial one.
Someone may say that the stumbling block is the British North America Act and that it is necessary to sell the idea to the provinces. That is not my conception of the situation at the present time. The members assembled here at the present time in this House of Commons last year approved a measure whereby they undertook the responsibility of amending the constitution of Canada in Canada, in this House of Commons, in any respect with the exception of language and religion. If the House of Commons, in its wisdom, decides that federal aid to education is necessary in order to raise the incomes to which I have just referred, we in this House of Commons can pass the necessary legislation, regardless of whether one or two provinces want to go along with us or not. It is just a

matter of determining what is right and what is wrong. If we are right in subsidizing education, then we should not let anything stand in its way.
As to Nova Scotia, I know that financially the province cannot do much about the matter. They have not sufficient revenue. I have here the figures showing their total revenue for the year 1949, and I shall just outline it briefly. As to their department of highways and public works, their total income in that field was $9,522,698. From the Nova Scotia liquor commission they received another $8,083,977.19. Their revenue was not bad on liquor. Those figures account for about 51 per cent of their total revenue. The other 40 per cent is made up of grants from the federal government, with small miscellaneous amounts accounting for the other five or six per cent. Having regard to the job they have done in education, in providing schools and so on, that kind of revenue leaves Nova Scotia at the end of their rope; and they admit that quite frankly. At the present time in that province there is talk of a sales tax. What they are going to do about it by way of raising additional revenues, I do not know. That is up to the legislature. I know, however, that the province is at the end of its rope. It cannot pass anything on to the municipalities; because in. my own town of Glace Bay, for example, 60 per cent of the total revenue goes into schools. That figure is away over and above what that town can afford. They must restrict many of their other services, and that is what they have been doing. Clearly, this matter of raising the teachers' salaries is a "must", and it is a matter of receiving some assistance from the federal government. Under the present taxation arrangement, the provincial government hands back to the federal government something like $24 million a year, in round figures, in certain fields of taxation that they have passed over to the federal government. These agreements expire in March, 1952. Negotiations to revise these agreements have been going on for some time, and are still going on. It may be necessary to revise them and to pass more revenue back to the province. That may be an answer. Maybe the provincial government can do something with their sales tax. That remains to be seen. Any government that gives the kind of subsidies I shall mention to organizations, for example, like the Dominion Steel and Coal Company should, when thinking in terms of providing the means of livelihood for the teachers in that province, consider seriously something by way of federal aid.
Education
This sessional paper 186A is a return to me dated June 1950, and it shows that the federal government paid to the Dominion Steel and Coal Company a coal subsidy of $366,442.55, a steel subsidy of $617,285.09 and a freight subvention on steel of $1,649,024.68. Then the Department of Transport, under the Maritime Freight Rates Act, on a short line of about twenty-six miles between Glace Bay and Louisburg granted a subsidy of $395,313.14.
Possibly those subsidies are necessary; I am not arguing on that point. However, I am pointing out that in subsidizing industry the federal government is very generous. But on this matter of subsidizing teachers' salaries in a province like Nova Scotia or, indeed, in the whole of the maritime provinces for that matter, the federal government is parsimonious. No consideration was given to the matter, not even at a dominion^provincial conference. I am sure Newfoundland is in exactly the same position.
I do not wish to occupy too much of the time of the house. I wished merely to set out first that in my view this is a financial matter. Secondly, I do not think we should use the British North America Act as an excuse to keep our teachers in the maritime provinces particularly on salaries below the average rates received by labourers in this country today.
Third, if industry can be subsidized to the extent I have just indicated, then I say it is about time we brushed aside the legalities and the stumbling blocks that are thought up merely as straw men* and recognized the fact that a decent standard of living for the teachers who are moulding our future citizens is a "must", and that we should get down to business and subsidize by federal aid. *


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make a lengthy speech on this occasion, because the ground has been well covered. However, having been associated with teachers' organizations for a long number of years, I should like to give my support to the resolution offered by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight).
I hope on this occasion the house will have an opportunity of expressing its opinion by a vote. When the matter was before the house a year or so ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who at that time spoke for the government, said he hoped the resolution would come to a vote. However there were so many speakers that evening, who spoke at some length, that it was finally talked out. I hope that will not happen this time, particularly because, even if we do use up the time this evening, the resolution will come

Education
before the house again when we reach public orders. As there seem to be few bills to discuss, this may take place on Thursday next. I hope therefore that no attempt will be made either to adjourn the debate or to talk the resolution out.
I listened to the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) a few moments ago. Today I was reading an article from the Maritime Teacher's Bulletin. It is in the form of a letter written to the editor of the Bulletin, and conforms pretty closely to what was said by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I should like to quote part of the letter, which is written by someone who signs himself, "A Nova Scotia teacher," and states:
Dear Sir:
I am wondering what is to become of the schools of Nova Scotia and the standards of the teaching profession. I find that I have reached the limit to which I can stretch my salary.
I am an A licensed teacher (started with a B) with eight years experience, which gives me $1,680 per year or a monthly salary of $140. I am married and have three children.
What happens to my cheque each month?
First I am deducted pension, $8.40; mortgage payments, $25.60-
I presume these are payments on his home. -telephone, $3.60; lights, $2.50.
And then follows a regular budgetary payment to one of the mail order stores, amounting to $19. The list continues:
Taxes, $3.00; fire insurance, $3.00; life insurance, $3.00; oil, kitchen range, $12.00; coal, living room, $5.74; local bus fares, $1.00; teachers' union dues and meetings, $1.00; church, $1.00; daily newspaper, $1.00.
This leaves a balance of $$1.16. Out of this I must pay for all our eats, incidentals, medical, social and etc.	^


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand the hon. member was reading a letter?


Major James William Coldwell: I have been reading from an article containing a letter in the Teacher's Bulletin. I believe if I quote from a letter I am permitted to quote from it provided, as a member of the house, I am able to vouch for its authenticity.


Mr. Speaker:: I would point out to the hon. member citation 270, Beauchesne's third edition, where it states that an unsigned letter should not be read in the house.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


Mr. Speaker:: I gathered however that the hon. member was not reading a letter which had been received by him.


Major James William Coldwell: No, I was reading from a letter appearing in an article in the Teacher's Bulletin. I admit it was not signed, but I believe it is authentic and I am putting it before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I felt I should mention the matter to the house. I did not raise the point in objection to what the hon. member was doing. I did think I should impress upon the house, however, the rule which provides that unsigned letters should not be read.


Major James William Coldwell: I think I understand the citation and the rule, and I am glad that Your Honour has drawn it to my attention.
In addition to living expenses today, if a teacher wishes to maintain his professional status he must not only buy books but he is expected to attend summer courses, teachers' institutes and the like. With the salaries being paid in some of the provinces it is impossible for a teacher to maintain the professional status his calling requires.
The resolution before us stresses the point, which I should like to stress myself, that the government "should take into consideration means of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada." I do not think anyone will say that educational opportunities in this country are equalized across the country-indeed, they are not equalized between one community and another. Certainly they are not equalized- among the various provinces. Nova Scotia has been mentioned. New Brunswick could be mentioned in the same way, as could Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. I know that because of the teachers' salaries paid in those provinces, and in some parts of our western provinces, many of our schools find it difficult to secure the services of fully qualified teachers. The result is that of necessity ministers of education have had to adopt a practice, which most of us thought would have been ended years ago, of issuing permits to teachers before they were qualified. That was particularly to the detriment of the rural schools. My experience in education leads me to believe that if you need a well qualified teacher, you need him in the rural schools. In the rural school a teacher has to teach, not just one or two grades or forms but very often he is expected to give some instruction in all the public school grades and in one, two, three and sometimes the four high school grades. Consequently the teacher in a rural school often assumes a greater obligation than the teacher in a well organized and directed city school. I have had some experience in both fields.
The rural districts vary in soil conditions, productivity and so on-. Where you have a poor district, there you have inability to meet the costs of education. It may be said that that is a matter for the province. Of course it is, but it seems to me that if we

Education
are going to equalize educational opportunities across Canada, when there is a lack of revenue in the municipality, the school district, the town or the province it will be necessary for the federal authority to find ways and means of making grants for education to the several provinces of Canada. That would not be interference with provincial autonomy. I should like to see coupled with it, if it can be worked out without interfering with provincial autonomy, an attempt made to raise the standards, particularly in provinces where standards are low and educational opportunities are few.
I am glad to say that in the western provinces there has been considerable improvement in educational facilities over the last twenty years. I know in my own province of Saskatchewan, looking back over the past six years and viewing education from the standpoint of the rural school, what you see today is something quite different and generally more advantageous to the pupils than what you saw a few years ago. I know when I was in the village of Sturgis last autumn or the town of Oxbow, as well as in the larger places of Kindersley and Rosetown, I saw composite schools that have been built to serve the areas. Some had dormitories attached where the boys and girls could board during the week for quite a small fee. There were machines and lathes and domestic science rooms, educational facilities as good as could be found in some of the schools in our cities.
That is a great advance, but it is a costly advance. In spite of greatly increased grants from the provincial authority the municipalities find it difficult to bear the cost of modern education. It is essential to the welfare of this country that we have an educational system which will give us students of a high calibre and of a high order. As someone else remarked, we found this out during the war. In the few years before the war a good many young men who might have left school to take jobs were unable to find jobs and continued at school. The result was that in the early years of the war we had the largest percentage of young men who qualified as pilots, navigators and observers of any country at war.
Before the war there were a large number of our young men in the Royal Air Force of the United Kingdom. When I went to Great Britain in 1941 with Your Honour, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and others, we were told over and over again that the young Canadians who had come to the British isles to enlist in the Royal Air Force
prior to the war were climbing in the service because they had the type of education required to carry them along.
With the kind of world in which we live today, whether it is for war or for peace, a first class education is a prime necessity. I want to see the educational facilities of this country of a type that will give every youth the opportunity of receiving the kind of education which his mental capacity will absorb so that he can render the highest and finest service possible, not only to himself as a citizen but to the community as a whole.
Consequently I have great pleasure in supporting the resolution and I hope that the house will be given an opportunity regardless of party affiliations, because this is not a party matter, of expressing to the government what we would like the government to do in this regard.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate, but I have been encouraged and intrigued by some of the speakers who have preceded me and I want to give one or two of my views with respect to the subject. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) upon what he said because I think he managed to confine his argument within a small area. He mentioned a point which is close to the opinion of many of us who come from districts like his own.
I approach this subject of education somewhat prejudiced because I married a rural schoolteacher. In addition there are a couple of my family who I expect will go into the same profession. There are a number of matters with respect to federal aid to education that demand the attention of this parliament.
Federal aid to education must be predicated on the fundamental basis that education is essentially and primarily a matter of provincial jurisdiction, and there it must stay. That idea has been so well settled through the years that perhaps no reminder of that position is necessary at this stage of our national life.
I have always felt that education should not be predicated upon either geography or finance. In a country like Canada no brilliant and industrious child should be denied the opportunity to obtain such education as he may be able to absorb and to make use of in the interests, not only of himself but of the greater Canada as a whole. One of the things we have to keep in mind so far as education is concerned is that the obtaining of an education is not a gift to a person. It is a challenge given to a person to do something for

Education
the community, for the state in general and for the uplifting of humanity in particular. I should not like to see-and I think most hon. members share this view-even a hint of an educational aristocracy in Canada because one man has a higher degree or has graduated from a different school than another.
In my brief span of years, taking my experience in public and private business, I must confess that when I want to bring good common sense and good judgment to bear upon a particular problem I do not always go to the man who has the highest degree or the greatest education. By training a man you cannot always endow him with that innate and natural common sense and good judgment which some people are born with and fortunately never lose. The federal government has nothing particularly to do in a direct way with what I am about to mention but nevertheless I now have an opportunity to put it before the house. As a result of educational schemes over the years, just the same as in other nations of the world-we are perhaps no different from any other nation- we have succeeded in putting a good many square pegs into round holes so far as their education is concerned and their life afterwards.	*
It costs a good deal of money to educate a boy or girl right through to the last stages. Because it does I think there is certainly a responsibility somewhere to see to it that the nation and its people get the best value possible for the money spent on such education. Of course many people have passed through higher seats of learning just because their fathers or mothers had enough money to finance them. I do not think that is quite good enough in a country developing like Canada. Instead of spending a lot of money on people who cannot give the best service to their country when they have finally met the educational qualifications and have been graduated from their courses, I think we should concentrate so far as we can on educating people for the positions in which they will be best fitted to serve the nation as a whole.
That does not mean that everybody has to have a B.A., Ph.D. or M.D. After all, many people do not regard such things in the same light as others. More than that, it seems to me that we must pattern our educational system on some basis whereby we will get the best out of the system we have. We only get that best by training those people who will respond the best to the training we give. I was amazed at the figures quoted by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) a moment ago. I have no doubt they could be repeated over and over again in many parts of Canada.

The other day I answered a questionnaire put out by some organization. Its name escapes me at the moment but the questionnaire had to do with the training of teachers. They asked me what was the most indelible impression left upon my mind as I went through school with respect to the teachers who had trained me. I answered first that I believed that the character and personality of the teacher left a more indelible impression upon me than any single thing said or taught. That calls for a high standard among the teaching profession. I want to say that there are magnificent examples of high character and integrity as well as scholastic and academic attainment among the teaching profession of Canada.
It seems to me that today the teacher serves in a dual capacity. Not only does he or she have to teach pupils what is in the curriculum but also so much of the life of our children today seems to be divorced from the home. It is unfortunate that such is the case. It is a weakness of our generation, but unfortunately that has been the trend. The result is that the teacher, not of his or her own volition but because of the very nature of things, takes on an added responsibility with respect to that kind of training. One might deal with all these various aspects of education at great length, but I am going to resist the temptation to do so at this time. I think it is obvious, however, that we cannot place too much emphasis upon the type of person who is going to train the next generation of Canadian citizens. What the child becomes in his school life he usually is in the years that lie ahead. It is of much greater importance that we of this generation should see to it that the next generation is such that it will be worthy of the country in which we are so privileged to live.
I want to refer again to what the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) has said. In the past week I accompanied a deputation to two ministers of the crown. We were concerned with the question of educational facilities in one of the proposed new subdivisions to house the rapidly expanding war worker population in the town from which I come. One of the difficulties that many municipalities now have arises from the fact that often people live in one municipality and the taxes on the industry in which they are working go into the coffers of another municipality. Of course that causes all kinds of complications and inequalities with respect to the incidence of taxation. We should keep our hands off jurisdictions that do not belong to us under the British North America Act, but so far as that kind of inequality is concerned out of our deep federal coffers we should try to

do something to equalize opportunity for education and the incidence of educational taxation in Canada, and to see that some of the inequalities are ironed out as best they can be. I should also like to mention one other matter.
I think most people who are in close touch with the many phases of university life in Canada today realize that students at universities right across the country are being burdened with extracurricular activities that to some extent at least are interfering with their opportunity to get the kind of education they were sent to get. I noticed that President Sidney Smith of the university of Toronto expressed a similar view just the other day. It is difficult enough for the average student at a university to master the curriculum; it is almost impossible for him to do so and at the same time take part in all the extracurricular activities that somehow or other creep into all our universities. I do not suppose we in Canada are nearly as badly off in this respect as they are in the United States, but I was glad to see that opinion expressed by President Smith, who I am sure will be followed by others calling for some change in this regard in order to give our students a better chance to do the job they are there to do. The other day a friend said: "Gordon, your girl and mine are down there at college, and something has to be done about that university. Some kind of change has to be made". I replied1, "Well, I agree, but what would you suggest?" His humorous answer was, "Well, there has to be some change. These lectures are getting in the way of everything they are doing down there, and 1 don't think we can permit that to go on".
Back of that humour is an opinion which is often felt, and I think it does no harm to occasionally sound at least a note of warning that after all these are seats of learning. While one would not want to impose any restrictions which would interfere with the general training and the better development of students, nevertheless there is a happy medium. Sometimes I think the pendulum has swung too far in one direction, though of course it might swing too far the other way, and we do not want to see that either.
Something has been said about the cost of education. A year ago last September a farmer going past my home in Brampton dropped in to introduce his boy, who was entering the school of science of Toronto university. I said to the father, "It is a costly business, sending a boy to university". He replied, "Well, I have four of them. If only I could be sure all four would go to university I would get off pretty cheaply, but one of them wants to stay at home on the farm, and 80709-31
Education
it is going to cost more to set him up in agriculture than it will take to put the other three through university". That is something we very often overlook. In a county like mine, where there is a highly specialized dairy industry, the costs of machinery, of land, of herds and so on sometimes are almost astronomical. So the cost of education may not always be so exorbitant as the cost of providing a first-class agriculture set-up for a boy.
It is interesting to hear people state that some cannot get an education because they have not the money. More than money is involved in getting an education, though I am arguing that we should have more from the federal treasury, as suggested in the resolution now before us. I should like to point out that a good many people whose mothers and fathers had not a penny with which to help them, and who had no one upon whom they could draw for financial assistance, have gone right to the top as far as education is concerned. Right in my town of Brampton we have a boy who is the son of a Dutch family that came to this country. They naturally were unable to pay the cost of his education, but he had ambition and fortitude and stepped out himself. In June that boy will graduate from Toronto university without having received but little financial help from home, as far as I know, but he did have the encouragement of good, Christian parents. In my opinion that boy will make a real contribution, because he has come up the hard way instead of having been spoon-fed and experiencing all the fads and frills of higher education. So it is not always a question of money, though of course money does enter into the picture. Many things are involved in getting an education. You must have the desire to succeed, to gain more knowledge. You must have encouragement at home, because that is a great help. In a survey made not long ago at a university it was found that sixty-five per cent of those in attendance were at that university because either their father or mother had attended or were interested in the university work. In other words the home atmosphere had a great deal to do with it. So while we may be able to overlook many of these factors, we must see to it that people who are qualified and anxious and willing have the opportunity to acquire an education. Brilliance alone is not enough. We cannot afford to educate every brilliant person in the country unless he is also industrious and has the character to go with it.
My remarks have been very rambling, Mr. Speaker; more in the nature of personal experiences and personal views on education, in the way I might talk in the lobbies, perhaps, rather than in the House of Commons. In

Education
conclusion 1 would ask the minister to indicate, at this stage of the debate, the decision [DOT]of the government with respect to this resolution. We have heard what other people have to say. I know that with his great kindness and courtesy the minister will say he would have loved to make a speech but there were so many others who wanted to speak and whom he wanted to hear. I quite appreciate that, but I believe the minister should amplify what he said during the last session or so. I have not my Hansard here, so I am not sure of his exact words, but he will recall them at once. If I may paraphrase what I remember him saying when a similar resolution was before the house, I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) indicated that one reason the government did not want to make any move at that time was because there was another dominion-provincial conference coming up.
I do not know what this government would do without a dominion-provincial conference somewhere in the offing. It seems to me that is a very convenient umbrella to get under once in a while.
I only suggest this to the minister: Before this debate ends he should indicate to the Commons what the government's policy is with respect to federal aid to education as laid down in this resolution. We shall be awaiting his very expanded remarks with more than usual interest.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to declare my prejudice in the same way as the member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) declared his. I, too, married a schoolteacher, and I found when I graduated from law that we could not live on her salary. I had to go to work. That may not be the sole reason why I welcome this resolution, but it does give us an opportunity to think about this problem and keep it before the public and before the government. I believe it is an extremely important problem. I realize that at this session we have some very heavy expenditures, particularly in connection with our preparedness program. Nevertheless, I believe I can recommend to my electors further expenditures for education. I think education pays dividends by way of the good citizenship which comes from it in a manner that no other expenditure does.
I want to make clear one more thing that the member for Peel as well as others touched upon. I join with them wholeheartedly in agreeing that provincial rights must be preserved. Anything we do in the way of assistance to education must in no way invade provincial rights. The matter of education belongs entirely to the provinces. The federal

government has no legitimate interest in provincial schools as such. Its interest is, and should, be in the children of Canada in all schools throughout the country. But I believe the federal authority ought to take an active rather than a passive interest.
The resolution before us speaks of equalizing educational opportunity. The problem, as has already been stated by members in this house, arises because our country's wealth is unequally distributed. But we must not lose sight of the fact that education is no less a concern of the poorer provinces. Inequality of educational opportunity is the result of economic inequality and not inequality of will. In my opinion federal aid to education will make it possible to raise the salaries of some of the teachers who have been notoriously underpaid for a great length of time. I have always felt that the community should look to the teacher, and the teacher should be proud of her profession. Salary increases have been neglected for a long time. On the last occasion when this subject was before us, some of the figures that were given in this house as payment to teachers for years of service were almost scandalous.
Recently in my own city of Toronto the board of education decided to increase teachers' salaries. There was a great hullabaloo about the possible increase in taxes. Of course, taxes will increase. But I think it is well for the citizens to know that money spent in that fashion is not only wisely spent but prudently spent. I noticed a Canadian Press dispatch which appeared in the Toronto Star of January 24. It was a dispatch from Vancouver, and reads as follows:
At the university of British Columbia, some lecturers get less than the janitor who sweeps out the classrooms, assistant professors less than plumbers, and full professors with a string of degrees little more than bricklayers.
One lecturer with a B.A. and M.A. drew a salary cheque last month for $190 less deductions. At the same time, in a waterfront office, a husky stevedore pocketed a month's earnings of $290.
The dominion government has had a wealth of experience in joining with the provinces in educational training, particularly vocational training. I have not heard of any friction between the two governments. The problem that seems to be uppermost in the minds of the members is, where do we get the funds? The government has been spending a considerable amount of money in educating veterans. Members have commended the government for it. We have all agreed that was money well spent, but it is now coming to an end. Some of these funds might well be diverted into this channel. It is for education. I believe the figures indicate

that some 130,000 veterans obtained education at various levels. Now their brains and their skills are available to this country tor whatever purpose we can make use of them. The total cost of that education has been about $165 million. What I think is more important, and is sometimes lost sight of, is the fact that the government, by virtue of the service these men gave, made it possible for them to obtain an education which would not have been possible otherwise. The result is that they have entered the professions and are making better lives for themselves. They are a greater asset to this country. But they have done one thing more. They have whetted the appetite of little Johnnie and little Mary for an education. These children have seen their elder brothers or sisters obtain something they thought was not within their reach. Now, they too want an education because of the advantages it gives under our system. Consequently, in our own interests, we ought to make that possible. Money spent on education is the most constructive, the most positive contribution we can make to the welfare of this country.
We have heard a great deal said about fiscal policy and that the readjustment of provincial subsidies may, in some way, solve the education problem. It is my belief, Mr. Speaker, that unless we in some way earmark the money for education that money will likely be spent on roads, institutions and public buildings of various sorts. We have discussed this matter on three or four occasions, and there is a desire in this house for a general expression of opinion. I shall not, therefore, take up any more time. I do believe this, Mr. Speaker, that this is a rare opportunity for us to make a start. This country has never been so rich in human and natural resources. We can afford to make a start at this particular time. We will hardly miss the money in this tremendous budget that is in front of us. I believe the people of Canada will appreciate it when we point out to them that part of their added taxes is to be used to educate the people of this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was my
privilege to be named as the seconder of the motion now before the house, which was moved by my colleague the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight). I wish to say just a few words in wholehearted support of the motion; but in view of the fact that most of the arguments in favour of the motion have been presented during the course of the debate thus far, I shall endeavour to refrain from repeating any of those arguments.
Education
I think it is clear to all of us that there is nothing on which we could spend money more usefully and to better advantage than on the education of our youth. It is equally clear that if we are really interested in national unity in this country, one of the best ways to advance it is by equalizing educational opportunities.
As I have already said, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to go over the arguments that have already been put forward by hon. members in all parts of the house; but I should like to say that I am certain that all of us who come from the province of Manitoba, if we are to represent the views of our people back in that province, must support this resolution regardless of the corner of the house in which we may sit.
During the week just before we came down here for this session, the Manitoba association of school trustees held its annual convention in Winnipeg. It sometimes happens in our province that when rural and urban people get together there are certain subjects about which they disagree. That is something that can happen even in a convention of school trustees. But on this question neither this year nor in previous years has there been any disagreement. There is unanimity on the point that the time has come for federal aid to education. That agreement amongst school trustees in Manitoba is not just the agreement of certain people that somebody else should pay; rather it is the considered opinion of the school trustees in urban, suburban and rural areas who have tussled with this problem across the years and who have come to the conclusion that, as was so well put in that short speech by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruick-shank), land taxes cannot any longer bear the full cost of education. It is also the case that that view is being put forward by a group of people who are keenly interested in having the most progressive kind of education that it is possible to have at this stage in our history; I refer to the school trustees in my province. I therefore feel that all of us from Manitoba-I know the situation is similar in other provinces, but I believe it is better for us to speak for our own-will most faithfully represent the views of those back home if we give wholehearted support to this motion.
Thus far I have spoken about the school trustees of the province as a whole. I should now like to say a word about the situation in Winnipeg. You will realize, Mr. Speaker, that although I am making particular references to school trustees, I am conscious of the interests of teachers, of parents and of citizens generally in this question. But that phase of the matter has been discussed by
484

Education
others, so I felt that I should make reference to the particular interest and concern in education that is expressed on the part of those who administer the educational set-up in our province. In Winnipeg we are proud of the progressive course that has been followed by our school board with respect to education. Some years ago a famous report on the affairs of our city was made by Carl Goldenberg. In it he pointed out that one of the reasons we have taken certain progressive steps in Winnipeg is as a result of the healthy competition between political groups in the city council and in the school board. I will not argue tonight about the giving of credit to one side or the other. I will stick with what Carl Goldenberg has said, namely, that the competition between opposing political groups has resulted in progressive measures generally in our city. That is particularly true in the matter of education. But the members of our school board in Winnipeg, as well as the members of our city council, have come to the realization that the further steps that we want to take in the interests of the education of our children, in the interests of developing the best possible race of Canadian citizens, and in the interests of making the best possible contribution to the welfare of our country as a whole, cannot be taken if we are still obliged to finance education wholly from taxes on real estate.
May I make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that all of us who advocate federal aid for education realize that what we are asking for is money out of the federal treasury to assist education within the provinces; but that is not to suggest that we are asking for something from some outside source. The plain fact of the matter is that the money in that federal treasury comes from all across the country. I am talking tonight about my own province and my own city. We are heavy contributors to the wealth of this nation, both from the farms of Manitoba and from the industries of my city. Out of that wealth taxes come, but they come more heavily into the federal treasury than they do either to the provincial treasury or to the coffers of the city of Winnipeg. In other words, we are asking for a sound and sensible redistribution of the wealth that we help to create, to only a minor extent but for an exceedingly important subject, namely the education of our youth and the building of the finest possible Canadian citizenry. I am therefore pleased that this motion is before the house at this time. We are pleased that it is getting support from all hon. members, and I hope that the government, through some cabinet minister, will express its view on the matter soon. I hope that it may come to a vote, and that an affirmative vote

for this resolution may result in favourable consideration being given to it by the government.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I know that there are other hon. members who wish to speak and, that the hour is getting late; I am therefore not going to make any extended remarks. However, my province and the other maritime provinces have been mentioned here tonight; and I find that in this house, when the subject of education is being discussed, we are usually held up as the horrible example in the Dominion of Canada. I might say that I do not think this has always been the case nor in fact do I think it is the case at the present time. If a history of education in Canada were consulted, I think you would find that the maritime provinces had contributed greatly not only to education within their own boundaries but also in the rest of the dominion. I remember some years ago being told,-and this is a historical fact-that at the time of the union of South Africa when a committee was appointed for the purpose of setting up an educational system for that union, they visited other parts of the British commonwealth and, after visiting New Brunswick, chose our system as the system for South Africa, and that they took the head of our normal school to South Africa as their educational adviser, and also took a good many of our teachers. We have always been rather proud of that fact.
Like some of the other members who have spoken here tonight, I also had some slight experience. I taught school for a few years and I also inspected! schools for one year. What has been said about trustees in rural districts proved to be very much the case. The little red schoolhouse about which we have heard so much in the past was not perhaps the ideal form of education that our nostalgic thoughts may have painted it. I remember, as the hon. member who has just taken his seat has said, that because taxes were collected entirely from real estate, the trustees in many instances seemed to be more inclined to try to keep down taxes in their districts, and thus to impede education, than to encourage it.
I feel that some responsibility for education must be borne by the federal government, and I could give many reasons. One of the chief reasons is that the small provinces cannot today afford to give to their people the educational facilities to which they are entitled, or that they should have. I know for instance that the people of New Brunswick are more heavily taxed than those in any other province of Canada. Our provincial debt is much

higher than that of any other province, and our debt charges as a percentage of revenue are the greatest of any province.
Perhaps some figures would make this point clear. In Quebec the per capita debt is $92.24, the lowest in the dominion. I shall not give the figures for the other provinces, but in New Brunswick it is the highest, at $256.62. Nova Scotia comes next with $190.16. These figures will give some idea of the burden on the shoulders of the small provinces. Debt charges as a percentage of revenue in Alberta are at their lowest point of 6.6 per cent. In New Brunswick the figure is 23.8 per cent. These figures and percentages give some idea of the burden placed upon the people in the small provinces.
There are other reasons why I think the rest of Canada should bear some of the burden, particularly that of the maritime provinces. Because of the concentration of industry in Ontario, Quebec and other parts of Canada, thousands of young people who were educated in the smaller provinces have come to the industrial provinces to build their industry and to take charge of their different organizations.
In those circumstances because of our loss of citizens the rest of Canada should help bear the burden of education. Then there is another great reason. During the last war I was connected with the army for some time, and in calling up recruits we found a deplorable situation affecting thousands of our young men all across Canada. I was particularly familiar with the conditions in my own province. We saw these young men who had very little education, some of them with no education at all, and others with third or fourth-grade standing. These were splendid young men, physically, who wanted to join the army and bear their share of the burden. However in many cases they were turned down because they had no education. These men who wanted to be engineers or artillerymen had to be told that they could not be accepted because their education did not qualify them for those branches of the service.
Many of them were sent home. I am not advocating that we educate our people for the army, but I do mention this as an illustration to show the deplorable condition of general education throughout the country as reflected in the statistics compiled when the call-up was made.
It is not my intention to speak at greater length. I am in wholehearted support of the resolution, and I hope that for the interest of Canada and for the people as a whole, from one end of the country to the other,
Education
some means may be found whereby educational opportunities may be equal to all people from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
(Translation):	-


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):: In rising
to take part in this debate on education, I am not unaware that the matter is very controversial and that any words of mine, unless carefully weighed, may give rise to more or less unpalatable polemics. The house may rest at ease in that respect. It is not my intention to refer to musty records now consigned to oblivion. I will deal only with a few general considerations and will confine my remarks to the cultural aspect of the matter, in my province and throughout Canada.
I listened with great attention when the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) told us they had married schoolteachers. I was all the more interested in that my own wife, who holds a Bachelor of Arts degree, herself taught young children for quite some time. My mother was also a teacher and I remember how, during old-time Canadian winters, like this one, when a heavy blanket of snow covered the earth in immaculate whiteness and the cold was nipping, she would find pleasure in recalling, by the warmth of the hearth, her memories as a schoolteacher at the little school of the Champlain county area called Murphy's Mill, near St. Stanislas.
It was there I began to understand the teaching profession. I found out what it meant to be an educationist. Later, having become a doctor, I understood that to be a schoolteacher required a degree of unselfishness only exceeded by that required in the practice of medicine.
I often hear it said that it is more blessed to give than to receive. The motion under discussion deals with federal aid to provincial governments. I would be in favour of these grants, on one condition though, that the provinces themselves administer those funds to assist education. There is no need for me to elaborate.
I live in a province which holds its autonomy very dear. To my mind the provincial government which would receive these federal subsidies would be doubly happy to redistribute them to those who need them in the province of Quebec, that is to say to every type of school within our educational system.

Education
I understand, as the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) said, that recruiting officers were often faced with young men who wished to join up but who could not do so for lack of education.
I believe that the Family Allowances Act passed by the federal government has somewhat made up for that lack of education because children are now compelled to attend school up to sixteen years of age in order to be entitled to family allowance. The government have thus killed two birds with one stone. By granting subsidies to the provinces, the federal government would set an example with regard to respect for autonomy and this would lead all provincial governments, even that of my province, to respect not only the autonomy of the central government but also that of the municipal councils and school boards. I do not say this for the sake of making unkind remarks but I have sometimes heard it said that the autonomy of municipal and school authorities was more or less respected. I feel that if the provincial authorities were given full and exclusive control of the funds granted by the federal government for educational purposes, it would be possible to respect the minorities as well in all provinces of the dominion as they are in the province of Quebec.
In The Ensign of May 20,	1950, Dr.
Percival is quoted as saying that the development of Protestant schools in the province of Quebec is akin to a fairy tale. They have made enormous progress because the autonomy of the Protestant school system has been respected and encouraged by the various governments. Needless to say that we who believe, in spite of the diversity of creeds, systems, habits, and outlooks, in unity, trust that one day those provinces which will not respect minorities, especially as regards the educational system, will be looked upon as oddities.
We shall never deplore such a state of affairs in the province of Quebec, because the respect of minorities has always been sacred to the provincial government, either under the leadership of Mr. Taschereau, Mr. Godbout or Mr. Duplessis.
It has often been said, in the committee on radio of which I am a member, by people well conversant with educational and cultural matters, that our country has many gifted young people with a talent for music, piano,
EMr. Gauthier (Portneuf) .1
violin or singing. We should foster such talents by way of federal subsidies to the provinces.
Such grants to the various provinces would contribute to the development of artistic appreciation and would enable our local artists, in the field of vocal or instrumental music, to give a better account of themselves, because they could benefit from larger provincial grants. We could, as in other countries, organize a national opera company which would put our best artists in the limelight and set an example to other countries of the world.
Because of a lack of funds, support and encouragement on the part of the dominion or provincial governments, talented Canadians must often seek fame and recognition abroad, art values not being well enough understood in this country. Musical associations are not sufficiently subsidized. I repeat what I have already stated on many occasions, that these associations should be subsidized by the provincial governments or, indirectly, by the dominion government.
Last summer, groups of teachers and pupils from the province of Quebec, co-operating with similar groups in Ontario and the maritimes-there may be other provinces of which I am not aware-visited each other in order to foster the study of this country's two official languages. I congratulate them.
I see that the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is in his seat. There is in his constituency a quaint little town called Trois Pistoles where, each year, many students gather from nearly all the provinces of Canada. They come there to study French. I am confident that when the hon. member rises to speak, he will deal with the matter, on which he is much better informed than I am.
In any event, that goes to prove that, when we believe in unity in spite of a diversity of languages, of beliefs, of abilities, we have reason to so believe because culture and good will are the foundation of mutual understanding. They are means that can always be used to make of our country a model of mutual understanding and prove to the rest of the world that in this Canada of ours, although it is governed by ten provincial governments and one federal government, we understand the importance of uniting in order that our fellow citizens may acquire a thorough bilingual education.
I have just been overseas. I saw there something which pleased me no less than it surprised me. In London, capital of the

Education
British empire, I had a better opportunity of speaking French than I would have had in many Canadian cities, which I shall of course not name since you know them. From the station we went to a hotel where the head-waiter, seeing we were several French-Canadians, greeted us in our own tongue. This gentleman spoke five or six languages.
I told him: "You speak French very well." To which he answered: "Of course, in my calling, one must know several languages and to learn them I had to live in the countries where they are spoken." We also noticed that part of the staff spoke and understood French. It was an agreeable surprise for us to hear French spoken by a dyed-in-the-wool Englishman. The following morning, we called a taxi to go sightseeing around London. That tour was too short and so was our stay, because there are many things to see in London. On hearing us speak French and realizing that we were Canadians, the taxi driver turned around and put in a few words in French, which he spoke rather well. We realized that although the man was neither a B.A. nor an LL.B. nor an M.D., still he spoke French fairly well.
Travelling in Canada, I have at times been unable to find someone who understood me when I spoke French. Once in a Montreal cafe, I had a hard time finding a Frenchspeaking waitress. This shows that we are being taught a lesson in bilingualism, which is not always practised in this country. Travelling through Europe, by either bus or train, we find that in France notices are printed in three languages. In Spain-the Spain that was so much criticized-they are printed in French and in Spanish, while in Italy they are printed in two languages, French and Italian, sometimes even in German. They are always printed in at least two languages.
Thus, when I speak of bilingualism, I am not at all straying from the subject of education. It is our way of showing why every child should be taught in his own tongue. There is no doubt that we will achieve true unity by promoting education of our young people with due regard to creed or language.
That is the main point I wanted to bring before the house tonight, and I trust I have made myself clear. I hope I have not offended anyone. I merely stated my views. Through education we should try to achieve true national unity, and thus become the envy of all those who look at us.
(Text):


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, having been interested in the question of education all my life I should like to say a few words on the motion before the house. There are three reasons why I am interested. First, I had a tough time getting an education myself. I had to get it the hard way. I had to work at times between school periods. I had to stay out of school some years to work. Second, I have six children of my own, and four of them are yet to be educated. Third, I sincerely believe that every child in the Dominion of Canada has a right to the opportunity of education irrespective of race, creed or colour, where they live, or what vocation in life their parents may follow. If we as parliamentarians fail in our duty to make education available to the children coming after us we are not doing our duty as members of parliament.
We all know that up to the present time education has been carried on in Canada by the provinces and municipalities. I happen to have a little experience along that line. I am chairman of the first township school area to come into being in Ontario at the time when the Hon. Howard Ferguson was minister of education. That move was a great boon to education in the rural sections of the province. I believe it is probably one of the reasons why the province of Ontario has the best educational system in the dominion.


An hon. Member:: Except Alberta.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Ontario's educational system was first organized by Egerton Ryerson, one of the greatest educationists the Dominion of Canada has ever known. The next advance in the province of Ontario was made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in 1947 when he was minister of education and premier of the province of Ontario. He put on the statute books of the province legislation which made it possible to have county high schools. I believe the first county in the province to put that system into effect was the county of Hastings, which is so ably represented by my colleague, the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White). We were either the second or third county to follow suit.
In the township school areas we are able to have graded schools that we otherwise could not have. We are all familiar with little country schools with eight or nine pupils. Those pupils are now brought to larger graded schools in many places where they formerly did not have them. The same

Education
thing applies to the county high schools. We have a better system and are giving the students who attend such schools a better chance for an education. The sparsely settled rural school sections in particular are greatly helped.
When this plan came into being provincial school grants jumped from one mill on the dollar to 50 per cent and as high as 85 per cent of the cost of education. A few schools in the poorer and more sparsely settled sections received up to 90 per cent of the total cost of education from the province of Ontario. The point I want to make is that within the last few years the cost of education has doubled. The cost of transportation has doubled. The cost of school teachers has doubled. All these extra costs have arisen through no fault of the municipalities or the provinces. They have no method of controlling inflation and the rising cost of living such as was exercised by the government in the last war. Therefore that is one definite reason why the government should do something about the cost of education at this time. The provinces have gone as far as they can go, and God knows anybody who lives in a rural municipality today knows that they have gone as far as they can go.
In my own municipality teachers are asking for an increase of $600 for the coming year before they will sign a contract. It means that very few, if any, of the taxpayers in that municipality can afford to pay the school taxes that will be levied next year. Another reason is that this is the third time this matter has been before the house, and I think it is high time that we did something about it.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to delay the house long on this matter. I believe the mover of the motion is very anxious to have a vote this evening, and I think he should be given that opportunity. This is the third time this resolution has been introduced by him, and I trust the third time will be lucky. Nobody from the province of Newfoundland has spoken on this subject yet, and that is the reason why I intervene for a few brief moments. Regardless of the party to which we belong-and I feel I am fairly safe in saying I speak for the rest of the Newfoundland members-I think we should support this resolution. At least I hope I am right in saying that about them.
The chief reason I am concerned is that when Newfoundland entered confederation one of the main arguments used was the equality of opportunity with all other Canadians that was going to be afforded to
TMr. Hodgson.]
the people of Newfoundland. Included in that opportunity was equal opportunity for education. The educational system in Newfoundland is basically denominational and the churches support the schools. Without the support of the churches the schools would not be able to operate in the manner in which they do at the present time. The burden would be entirely too much for the provincial government to bear. This year Newfoundland has established its first full-time university. It is true it is only granting degrees in a very limited manner, but it is hoped that, possibly as the result of this resolution, we will be able to go further.
The chief way in which we would benefit would be in the salaries that could be paid to the teachers. At the present time they are not by any means receiving what they deserve. As a result they are not able to gain a living from the teaching profession and are leaving it in great numbers. There is great difficulty in securing teachers for the smaller schools in the outports.
I agree entirely with the resolution. I think the contribution to be made should be made in the same way that family allowance cheques are payable now. It should be made on a per capita pupil basis. I am thoroughly in accord with the motion.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, last year a similar resolution was introduced, and at that time I spoke at considerable length, giving in detail the reasons why I supported it. I do not think any good purpose would be served if I were to repeat the arguments I advanced at that time, particularly in view of the lateness of the hour. I would like to say, however, that last year the resolution seemed to receive support from practically everyone who spoke, on all sides of the house. The same thing appears to be true today, so it would seem to me the time has now come to put an end to talk on the matter and let us have some action toward implementing it.


Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, this academic debate reminds me of an example of Latin grammar, cedant arma togae, which means "Let arms yield to the gown"-I mean the gowns of the professors. Each year we have an interesting and academic debate on education. What is education? Everyone who speaks of it assumes that the people know what is meant by education. It could be considered from many aspects; perhaps as a kind of polish, a varnish of letters and sciences that gives one the privilege of believing himself superior to his neighbour because he knows more than the other does.

Naturally I bow to my hon. colleagues who have been teachers, school inspectors and even school board trustees, because they have been familiar with the problem of education at large and the bringing up of children in the schools. I profoundly admire the devotion of teachers of every category, who try to mould the minds of the young ones who attend their classes. They help in forming public opinion at the start when they teach these young boys and girls who are the main asset of this country. The Romans used to call the knowledge of letters litterae humaniores, the letters that are more human. That is a literal translation. The meaning of the expression is that the knowledge of letters makes a man more human or contributes towards making a man complete from the point of view of intelligence.
Do you remember, sir, learning at school about those who came with the first settlers of this country, to teach the gospel andj the languages of Europe to the young people who attended their classes? Not long ago in Rome one of the ladies who came here at the beginning of the colony to educate the young people was beatified in the church of St. Peter for her devotion to youth. All those people who came to this country from the old land with the determination to raise the standard of understanding of the youth of that time, both the civilized and uncivilized youth, deserve to be remembered because they rendered an immense service to this country.
Education cannot be assessed in terms of money, though money is needed to follow certain courses that are very expensive. However, I would not want anyone to believe that if he has lots of money at his disposal he may become better educated than one who is not in such favoured circumstances. And by the way, sir, you know very well that the pillars of the universities and seats of learning are often men who have succeeded in life by their own means, who have been self-taught and who have given part of their incomes or of their fortunes to support institutions of learning. If the universities of Canada had not been able to rely upon the support they have received from provincial governments, where would they be today? I remember that in spite of the millions that have been given by the provincial government of Quebec to McGill university, Chancellor James complained that the government had not been generous enough. I found that ungrateful at the time.
What is the source of income of a university? It is not the meagre amounts contributed by the students. The professors could not live on that, and naturally they 80709-32
Education
deserve to be well paid. Some of them are; some others are not. The greatest contribution toward the upkeep of our universities and seats of learning comes from the pocket-book of the Canadian taxpayer, large or small. It is easy to say the dominion government should be more generous in matters of education. It may be the duty of each of us as a private individual to discuss the matter of education, but as members of parliament it is not our business unless the British North America Act is changed. It is not within the province of the dominion parliament to deal with education.
The debate today, in common with debates in previous years, was premature. We do not know, and no one knows, what agreement will be reached between the dominion government and the provinces with regard to education.
Education may, at times, be a good thing. It is not always a good thing because of that old proverb, "Ignorance is bliss." I know of many men who would be much happier if they did not know how to read or write. I know many who do not know how to read or write, but who are well educated; who are perfect gentlemen with fine manners; who have a most interesting conversation. Why? Because they take the time to think. They express their own views. They try to share their thoughts with other people in an inimitable way.
Science has made great progress, but not always for the good of the world; far from it. Science has been dealing with great problems, problems that may bring about the complete destruction of mankind. I am not very strong for that science. In my humble view, sir, science should always serve mankind for the betterment of life, and not for the destruction of the peoples of the world.
But now, sir, when I speak of education, I mean total education; education of a child on his mother's knee; education of a child by his mother who teaches him the rudiments of his faith; who tells him how to speak clearly, distinctly and well the language of his fathers. Sometimes the mothers teach both languages to their children so as to equip them for the struggle that they will encounter when they grow older. Then, boys and girls go to the primary school. I am astonished at times at the columns of young children who walk long distances in blizzards and all sorts of bad weather to go each day to the little school where they will improve the education that they have received at home. Then, with that training, some boys and some girls can succeed in life and be good citizens. Some others continue their studies. Some make

Education
sacrifices and earn their living while attending lectures. Some work in the daytime, so as to continue their studies at night. Is it not magnificent, the courage, the determination ol youth to learn something so as to be better equipped for life? Naturally, the requirements of modern life make it necessary that universities be better equipped. It is necessary for universities to have all the new inventions in order to teach the young ones how to take advantage of the progress of science. All that is very good. It is expensive. As a Quebec taxpayer, I have to pay my share of that, as do all the members in their own province.
If a certain amount is given by the dominion government to the provinces, we will all pay for it but we will have no control. The control will remain within the provinces, and a gift for education without control to ensure the good use of it-what does it amount to? We, as members of parliament, are in duty bound to protect the taxpayers. In my humble view the resolution before us could be submitted to any one of the legislatures in Canada, but I do not see how it can come before the dominion parliament when, as aforesaid, and in virtue of the constitution, we have no jurisdiction over the matter.
Some people are insisting too much upon educational requirements. The member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) spoke about the soldiers and sailors who were not well enough educated to be accepted in any branch of the service. I wonder, sir, how many honorary degrees a British tommy or a French poilu should have? What is the requirement for the army? It is to be in good health and to be willing to fight, to know how to carry a gun and make good use of it. That is all. What is the necessity for a poilu or for a tommy knowing the infinitesimal calculus? It is ridiculous. But there are some people who say that we must have an army of brains, and that each soldier should be a B.A. because, as Napoleon I said, "In each soldier's bag there is a marshal's baton". It is ridiculous.
Another thing that is ridiculous is the number of Ph. D's., et cetera, that we have here in the service. It is incredible, but if anyone looks at the Canadian Almanac, Department of Agriculture, he will see that the head of the fertilizer branch is a B.A., et cetera, et cetera. A cowboy was needed on an experimental farm in the province of Quebec. A B.A. was required. I will add nothing to that. Everybody will understand.
It is not only that. In the Civil Service Act there is a provision to the effect that

experts or men of unusual technical ability may be appointed without examination. What happens? Mr. So and So goes to the civil service commission. He is not Mr. So and So; he is Dr. So and So. We have a great many doctors, and I shall have something to say about that matter. Dr. So and So goes to the civil service commission and he tells the head examiner, "You need experts; you need technicians. I am an expert; I am a technician". They say, "What is your degree?" He says, "I am a doctor of laws; I received my degree from the university of Warsaw". They do not ask him to show his parchment with the golden seal on it. They take him at his word. Then they appoint the illustrious Dr. So and So, doctor of laws, science, arts, medicine, with the degree conferred by the university of Warsaw. He is an expert. That is what is done at the civil service commission. I do not exaggerate. Everybody knows that is true. Those lamp posts nearly always mention cities behind the iron curtain as the seats of learning at which they obtained their so-called degree. Not only that, but I knew a man who was secretary of the Canadian Bar Association and who was appointed doctor of laws honoris causa by the university of Manitoba; and in the official records he was mentioned as Dr. So and So, doctor of this and doctor of that- there was a list as long as my arm. There was another man right here in this room who was a doctor. People would say "How are you, doctor?" "Very well, thank you", said the doctor. It was always "doctor"; it was "doctor" in the Votes and Proceedings, in Hansard and all over. He was given the degree of doctor honoris causa by a university that did not give lectures in law. But he was an illustrious doctor, a well-educated man. This is the progress of education in Canada. We mistake the shadow for the reality. We are young; we are credulous; and we forget that what is most important for all men is to have qualities of the heart and of the mind that are much superior to wrong education, on many occasions.
When I think of the training of children, I cannot do otherwise than bow to the priests of the province of Quebec who earn a meagre salary, one which is less in money than anything that is paid to any university professor. Some of those men have gone to study at Louvain, Paris, and the various capitals of Europe, in order to give to the youth of our country a kind of education that is unparalleled. They do so at a great sacrifice. I remember my father's friend who was exceedingly good to me. I refer to the late lamented Archbishop Mathieu of Regina who

left the Quebec seminary and Laval university of which he was the rector, to be appointed archbishop of Regina. His salary was $120 a year. He performed his duties not to earn money but to help his country, just in the same way as did the pioneers of education when this country was in its cradle. These things cannot be forgotten. The sacrifices that have been made in the past, centuries ago, by men and women of courage, of education at its best, men and women with a big heart, are things that cannot be forgotten-a great many have followed in the tradition they established- and this is why. People come from all parts of Canada to the seats of learning in the province of Quebec in order to get the best education that is given in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow is government day. We will take up the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) concerning emergency legislation, then the resolution which is the basis of a bill to constitute a department of defence production; then second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, and second reading of Bill No. 6, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways. We could conclude the day by taking up the resolution concerning amendments to the Indian Act.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
493
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 20, 1951